Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jan-Jun;23(1):20-25.
doi: 10.4103/1117-6806.199962.

A Comparative Study of the Use of Harmonic Scalpel versus Unipolar Cautery in Modified Radical Mastectomy

Pallavi Mittal  1 , Ashwani Kumar  1 , Sunmeet Kaur  2 , Paras Kumar Pandove  1 , Rachan Lal Singla  1 , Jagpal Singh  1
Affiliations

A Comparative Study of the Use of Harmonic Scalpel versus Unipolar Cautery in Modified Radical Mastectomy

Pallavi Mittal et al. Niger J Surg. 2017 Jan-Jun.

Abstract

Context: Oncosurgery is an emerging branch with the set goals of prolonging the life and ensuring the best possible quality of life to the surviving patient. The use of harmonic scalpel has proved to be beneficial in a variety of surgeries but its role in breast surgery is still controversial.

Aims: We conducted this study to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in modified radical mastectomy using harmonic scalpel versus electrocautery.

Subjects and methods: Fifty female patients with confirmed diagnosis of breast carcinoma and planned for modified radical mastectomy were taken up for surgery. Twenty-five patients were operated using harmonic scalpel (Group A) and another 25 were operated using unipolar cautery (Group B).

Results: The mean operative time was significantly longer with harmonic scalpel when compared to that with electrocautery (140.40 ± 29.96 vs. 99.80 ± 24.00 min, P < 0.001). The smaller amount of drainage content (431.60 ± 145.94 vs. 594.20 ± 278.63, P = 0.013) and intraoperative blood loss (426.00 ± 76.54 vs. 502.00 ± 104.56, P = 0.005) in the group operated with the ultrasound harmonic scalpel was statistically significant. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to drain duration (5.24 ± 0.97, P = 0.127), seroma (12% vs. 16%, P = 0.684), hematoma (4% vs. 4%, P = 1.000), wound infection (24% vs. 32%, P = 0.529), flap necrosis (8% vs. 28%, P = 0.066), pain intensity (measured on visual analog scale) (5.08 ± 1.29 vs. 5.20 ± 1.68, P = 0.778), and lymphedema (4% vs. 8%, P = 0.552). The length of hospital stay could not be compared effectively because all the patients were discharged on the 10th or 11th postoperative day. The cost of the equipment used in the electrocautery group was almost negligible as compared to the harmonic group.

Conclusions: The use of harmonic scalpel versus electrocautery is somewhat advantageous but not cost-effective.

Keywords: Harmonic scalpel; modified radical mastectomy; unipolar cautery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort flow diagram of participants
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Brunicardi F, Andersen D, Billiar T, Dunn D, Hunter J, Matthews J, et al. Schwartz's Principles of Surgery. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. The breast; pp. 440–1.
    1. Kuraparthy S, Reddy KM, Yadagiri LA, Yutla M, Venkata PB, Kadainti SV, et al. Epidemiology and patterns of care for invasive breast carcinoma at a community hospital in Southern India. World J Surg Oncol. 2007;5:56. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Odel RC. Laparoscopic electrosurgery. In: Hunter JG, Sackier JM, editors. Minimally Invasive Surgery. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1993. pp. 33–41.
    1. Voyles CR, Tucker RD. Education and engineering solutions for potential problems with laparoscopic monopolar electrosurgery. Am J Surg. 1992;164:57–62. - PubMed
    1. Matthews B, Nalysnyk L, Estok R, Fahrbach K, Banel D, Linz H, et al. Ultrasonic and nonultrasonic instrumentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2008;143:592–600. - PubMed