Ammar Ismail1, Abdelrahman Ibrahim Abushouk2, Ahmed Elmaraezy3, Amr Menshawy4, Esraa Menshawy4, Mahmoud Ismail4, Esraa Samir5, Anas Khaled6, Hagar Zakarya5, Abdelrahman El-Tonoby4, Esraa Ghanem5. 1. Al-Azhar Research Network, Cairo, Egypt; Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; Al-Azhar Medical Students' Association, Cairo, Egypt; NovaMed Medical Research Association, Cairo, Egypt. 2. NovaMed Medical Research Association, Cairo, Egypt; Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. 3. Al-Azhar Research Network, Cairo, Egypt; Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; Al-Azhar Medical Students' Association, Cairo, Egypt; NovaMed Medical Research Association, Cairo, Egypt. Electronic address: ahmadalmraezy@azhar.edu.eg. 4. Al-Azhar Research Network, Cairo, Egypt; Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; Al-Azhar Medical Students' Association, Cairo, Egypt. 5. Al-Azhar Research Network, Cairo, Egypt; Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. 6. Al-Azhar Research Network, Cairo, Egypt; Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, New Damietta, Egypt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although cutting electrocautery can be superior to the scalpel in reducing blood loss and incisional time, several reports associated electrocautery with higher rates of wound infection, impaired healing, and worse cosmesis. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a computerized literature search of five electronic databases and included all published original studies comparing cutting electrocautery and scalpel surgical incisions. Relevant data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) values in a meta-analysis model, using RevMan and Comprehensive Meta-analysis software. RESULTS: Forty-one studies (36 randomized trials, four observational, and one quasirandom study) were included in the pooled analysis (6422 participants). Compared with the scalpel incision, cutting electrocautery resulted in significantly less blood loss (SMD = -1.16, 95% CI [-1.60 to -0.72]), shorter incisional (SMD = -0.63, 95% CI [-0.96 to -0.29]) and operative times (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.12 to -0.05]), and lower pain scores (SMD = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.27 to -0.55]) with no significant differences in terms of wound infection rates (OR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.74-1.15]) or overall subjective scar score (SMD = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.72 to 0.75]). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical incision using electrocautery can be quicker with less blood loss and postoperative pain scores than the scalpel incision. No statistically significant difference was found between both techniques in terms of postoperative wound complications, hospital stay duration, and wound cosmetic characteristics. Therefore, we recommend routine use of cutting electrocautery for surgical incisions.
BACKGROUND: Although cutting electrocautery can be superior to the scalpel in reducing blood loss and incisional time, several reports associated electrocautery with higher rates of wound infection, impaired healing, and worse cosmesis. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a computerized literature search of five electronic databases and included all published original studies comparing cutting electrocautery and scalpel surgical incisions. Relevant data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) values in a meta-analysis model, using RevMan and Comprehensive Meta-analysis software. RESULTS: Forty-one studies (36 randomized trials, four observational, and one quasirandom study) were included in the pooled analysis (6422 participants). Compared with the scalpel incision, cutting electrocautery resulted in significantly less blood loss (SMD = -1.16, 95% CI [-1.60 to -0.72]), shorter incisional (SMD = -0.63, 95% CI [-0.96 to -0.29]) and operative times (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.12 to -0.05]), and lower pain scores (SMD = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.27 to -0.55]) with no significant differences in terms of wound infection rates (OR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.74-1.15]) or overall subjective scar score (SMD = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.72 to 0.75]). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical incision using electrocautery can be quicker with less blood loss and postoperative pain scores than the scalpel incision. No statistically significant difference was found between both techniques in terms of postoperative wound complications, hospital stay duration, and wound cosmetic characteristics. Therefore, we recommend routine use of cutting electrocautery for surgical incisions.