Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy. Abdominal wound problems after hysterectomy with electrocautery vs. scalpel subcutaneous incision. Electrosurgical skin incision versus conventional scalpel: a prospective trial. A prospective study of incisional time, blood loss, pain, and healing with carbon dioxide laser, scalpel, and electrosurgery. Electrocautery used to create incisions does not increase wound infection rates. Comparative study of abdominal incision techniques. Energy sources for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional electrosurgery, bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgery and ultrasonic dissection. Operative outcome and costs analysis.
Electrocautery is used increasingly for tissue dissection, although fears of excessive scarring and poor wound healing have curtailed its widespread use for skin incision. This study compared electrosurgical incision with traditional scalpel incision.
                One hundred patients requiring elective midline laparotomy were randomized prospectively to either scalpel or diathermy incision. Parameters measured included incision time, wound size, wound blood loss, total intraoperative blood loss and postoperative wound pain. All wound complications were recorded.
                The two groups did not differ significantly in relation to patient or wound characteristics. Laparotomy incisions using diathermy were significantly quicker than scalpel incisions (mean(s. e.m.) 6.1(0.4) versus 7.5(0.5) s/cm2; P < 0.04). There was significantly less blood loss in the diathermy group compared with the scalpel group (0.8(0.1) versus 1.7(0.3) ml/cm2; P = 0.002). Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the diathermy group for the first 48 h after operation (P < 0.05). Morphine requirements were also significantly lower over the first 5 postoperative days in the diathermy incision group (P < 0.04). There was no difference between groups in wound complications before discharge and at the 1-month follow-up.
                Electrosurgical midline incision in elective surgery has significant advantages over scalpel use on the basis of incision time, blood loss, early postoperative pain and analgesia requirements. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between postoperative abdominal incision problems and opening subcutaneous tissues with electrocautery or scalpel. Women scheduled for elective abdominal hysterectomy who gave informed consent were randomly assigned to subcutaneous abdominal wall tissue incision by electrocautery or scalpel. Postoperative abdominal wound problem diagnoses included seroma, hematoma, infection, or dehiscence without identifiable etiology. Fifteen of 380 women (3.9%) developed a wound problem; six had scalpel and nine had electrosurgical subcutaneous incisions (P = 0.4). Thicker subcutaneous tissues (P = 0.04) and concurrent pelvic infection (P < 0.001) were significant risk factors for postoperative wound problems. Only two women (0.5%) developed an infection. We conclude that the method of subcutaneous tissue incision was unrelated to the development of postoperative abdominal incision problems in 380 women undergoing elective abdominal hysterectomy. A controlled clinical study comparing skin incision by conventional scalpel with electrosurgical needle incision has shown the latter technique to be highly effective, consistently quicker, and to give better cosmetic results with minimal complications. It is a convenient technique and well tolerated by the patients with no added discomfort. Skin diathermy burns and wound haematomas were only seen after conventional scalpel incision. Fears of delayed wound healing, keloid formation and high infection rates are unfounded. Carbon dioxide laser incisions are reported to be less painful, less bloody, and less prone to seroma formation and to heal better than scalpel or electrosurgical incisions. We compared all three modalities in a prospective randomized study of cholecystectomy incisions. Time required for the incision and incisional blood loss was less with electrosurgery than with the carbon dioxide laser or scalpel. Postoperative pain and wound healing, however, were the same for all three techniques. The carbon dioxide laser appears to offer no advantage over conventional means of making a standard incision. A prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial was conducted to determine whether electrocautery as a means of creating abdominal or thoracic wounds would result in increased wound infection rates. Over a 15-month period, 492 consecutively studied patients were randomly placed into 1 of 2 groups: scalpel or electrocautery. There were no differences in age grouping, use of steroids, incidence of diabetes, number of days preoperative, operative time, use of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, use of drains, number of obese patients, or gender ratio. Wound infections developed in 38 of the 250 scalpel patients (15%) and in 30 of the 242 cautery patients (12%). The use of electrocautery to create surgical wounds does not increase wound infection rates. The characteristics of surgical incisions made with an electrosurgical technique were compared with those made using conventional methods in a prospective randomized trial. In particular, the claim that the method of incision may influence postoperative pain was investigated. A total of 101 consecutive patients receiving full-length midline laparotomy incisions for gastrointestinal resection were studied. A record was kept of the time required to make the incision and blood loss as well as postoperative pain (using a linear analogue scale), ventilatory function and requirement for analgesia. There were 50 patients in group 1 (scalpel; 15 men, 35 women) and 51 in group 2 (electrocautery; 26 men, 25 women). The groups were similar in age, body-weight, diagnosis and the type of surgical procedures being performed. Incision time was similar in the two groups but median blood loss during incision was significantly less in group 2 patients than in group 1 (10 versus 25 ml, P < 0.0001). Linear analogue pain scores were not significantly different between the groups at any stage after operation. The same was true of postoperative ventilatory function and requirement for analgesia. A total value for morphine use during the entire postoperative period was derived for each group and the median was 1.55 mg/kg for group 1 compared with 1.49 mg/kg for group 2. The electrosurgical method is associated with less blood loss during incision, although this study has failed to confirm any reduction in postoperative pain or requirement for analgesia in these patients. The development of operative laparoscopic surgery is linked to advances in ancillary surgical instrumentation. Ultrasonic energy devices avoid the use of electricity and provide effective control of small- to medium-sized vessels. Bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgical technology eliminates the disadvantages of electrical energy, and a mechanical blade adds a cutting action. This instrument can provide effective hemostasis of large vessels up to 7 mm. Such devices significantly increase the cost of laparoscopic procedures, however, and the amount of evidence-based information on this topic is surprisingly scarce. This study compared the effectiveness of three different energy sources on the laparoscopic performance of a left colectomy. The trial included 38 nonselected patients with a disease of the colon requiring an elective segmental left-sided colon resection. Patients were preoperatively randomized into three groups. Group I had electrosurgery; vascular dissection was performed entirely with an electrosurgery generator, and vessels were controlled with clips. Group II underwent computer-controlled bipolar electrosurgery; vascular and mesocolon section was completed by using the 10-mm Ligasure device alone. In group III, 5-mm ultrasonic shears (Harmonic Scalpel) were used for bowel dissection, vascular pedicle dissection, and mesocolon transection. The mesenteric vessel pedicle was controlled with an endostapler. Demographics (age, sex, body mass index, comorbidity, previous surgery and diagnoses requiring surgery) were recorded, as were surgical details (operative time, conversion, blood loss), additional disposable instruments (number of trocars, EndoGIA charges, and clip appliers), and clinical outcome. Intraoperative economic costs were also evaluated. End points of the trial were operative time and intraoperative blood loss, and an intention-to-treat principle was followed. The three groups were well matched for demographic and pathologic features. Surgical time was significantly longer in patients operated on with conventional electrosurgery vs the Harmonic Scalpel or computed-based bipolar energy devices. This finding correlated with a significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss. Conversion to other endoscopic techniques was more frequent in Group I; however, conversion to open surgery was similar in all three groups. No intraoperative accident related to the use of the specific device was observed in any group. Immediate outcome was similar in the three groups, without differences in morbidity, mortality, or hospital stay. Analysis of operative costs showed no significant differences between the three groups. High-energy power sources specifically adapted for endoscopic surgery reduce operative time and blood loss and may be considered cost-effective when left colectomy is used as a model.
Current evidence suggests that making an abdominal incision with electrosurgery may be as safe as using a scalpel. However, these conclusions are based on relatively few events and more research is needed. The relative effects of scalpels and electrosurgery are unclear for the outcomes of blood loss, pain, and incision time.