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
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Jun 14;6(6):CD005987.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005987.pub3.

Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions

Kittipat Charoenkwan  1 , Zipporah Iheozor-Ejiofor, Kittipan Rerkasem, Elizabeth Matovinovic
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions

Kittipat Charoenkwan et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Scalpels or electrosurgery can be used to make abdominal incisions. The potential benefits of electrosurgery may include reduced blood loss, dry and rapid separation of tissue, and reduced risk of cutting injury to surgeons. Postsurgery risks possibly associated with electrosurgery may include poor wound healing and complications such as surgical site infection.

Objectives: To assess the effects of electrosurgery compared with scalpel for major abdominal incisions.

Search methods: The first version of this review included studies published up to February 2012. In October 2016, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and the registry for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov). We did not apply date or language restrictions.

Selection criteria: Studies considered in this analysis were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared electrosurgery to scalpel for creating abdominal incisions during major open abdominal surgery. Incisions could be any orientation (vertical, oblique, or transverse) and surgical setting (elective or emergency). Electrosurgical incisions were made through major layers of the abdominal wall, including subcutaneous tissue and the musculoaponeurosis (a sheet of connective tissue that attaches muscles), regardless of the technique used to incise the skin and peritoneum. Scalpel incisions were made through major layers of abdominal wall including skin, subcutaneous tissue, and musculoaponeurosis, regardless of the technique used to incise the abdominal peritoneum. Primary outcomes analysed were wound infection, time to wound healing, and wound dehiscence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, wound incision time, wound-related blood loss, and adhesion or scar formation.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. When necessary, we contacted trial authors for missing data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data.

Main results: The updated search found seven additional RCTs making a total of 16 included studies (2769 participants). All studies compared electrosurgery to scalpel and were considered in one comparison. Eleven studies, analysing 2178 participants, reported on wound infection. There was no clear difference in wound infections between electrosurgery and scalpel (7.7% for electrosurgery versus 7.4% for scalpel; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54; low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and serious imprecision). None of the included studies reported time to wound healing.It is uncertain whether electrosurgery decreases wound dehiscence compared to scalpel (2.7% for electrosurgery versus 2.4% for scalpel; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.50; 1064 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and very serious imprecision).There was no clinically important difference in incision time between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -45.74 seconds, 95% CI -88.41 to -3.07; 325 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for serious imprecision). There was no clear difference in incision time per wound area between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -0.58 seconds/cm2, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.09; 282 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence downgraded for very serious imprecision).There was no clinically important difference in mean blood loss between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -20.10 mL, 95% CI -28.16 to -12.05; 241 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for serious imprecision). Two studies reported on mean wound-related blood loss per wound area; however, we were unable to pool the studies due to considerable heterogeneity. It was uncertain whether electrosurgery decreased wound-related blood loss per wound area. We could not reach a conclusion on the effects of the two interventions on pain and appearance of scars for various reasons such as small number of studies, insufficient data, the presence of conflicting data, and different measurement methods.

Authors' conclusions: The certainty of evidence was moderate to very low due to risk of bias and imprecise results. Low-certainty evidence shows no clear difference in wound infection between the scalpel and electrosurgery. There is a need for more research to determine the relative effectiveness of scalpel compared with electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Kittipat Charoenkwan: none known.

Zipporah Ejiofor‐Iheozor: none known.

Kittipat Rerkasem: is funded by the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University.

Elizabeth Matovinovic: none known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram of review update.
2
2
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions, outcome: 1.1 Wound infection.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions, Outcome 1 Wound infection.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions, Outcome 2 Wound infection (subgroup analysis).
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions, Outcome 3 Wound dehiscence.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions, Outcome 4 Wound incision time (seconds).
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions, Outcome 5 Wound incision time per wound area (second/cm2).
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions, Outcome 6 Wound‐related blood loss (mL).
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions, Outcome 7 Wound related blood loss per wound area (mL/cm2).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Argerich 2005 {published data only}
    1. Argerich AL, Santos JC, Lima MA, Mikalauscas RR, Hassan E. Electrocautery effects in infection rates of operative abdominal wounds [Efeitos do eletrocauterio nas taxas de infeccao de feridas operatorias abdominais]. Jornal Brasileiro de Medicina 2005;89(4):12‐6.
Dixon 1990 {published data only}
    1. Dixon AR, Watkin DF. Electrosurgical skin incision versus conventional scalpel: a prospective trial. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 1990;35(5):299‐301. - PubMed
Elbohoty 2015 {published data only}
    1. Elbohoty AE, Gomaa MF, Abdelaleim M, Abd‐El‐Gawad M, Elmarakby M. Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 2015;41:1541‐6. - PubMed
Eren 2010 {published data only}
    1. Eren T, Balik E, Ziyade S, Yamaner S, Akyuz A, Bugra D. Do different abdominal incision techniques play a role in wound complications in patients operated on for gastrointestinal malignancies? "Scalpel vs. electrocautery". Acta Chirurgica Belgica 2010;110(4):451‐6. - PubMed
Groot 1994 {published data only}
    1. Groot G, Chappell EW. Electrocautery used to create incisions does not increase wound infection rates. American Journal of Surgery 1994;167(6):601‐3. - PubMed
Hemsell 1993 {published data only}
    1. Hemsell DL, Hemsell PG, Nobles B, Johnson ER, Little BB, Heard M. Abdominal wound problems after hysterectomy with electrocautery vs. scalpel subcutaneous incision. Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;1(1):27‐31. - PMC - PubMed
Hussain 1988 {published data only}
    1. Hussain SA, Hussain S. Incisions with knife or diathermy and postoperative pain. British Journal of Surgery 1988;75(12):1179‐80. - PubMed
Johnson 1990 {published data only}
    1. Johnson CD, Serpell JW. Wound infection after abdominal incision with scalpel or diathermy. British Journal of Surgery 1990;77(6):626‐7. - PubMed
Kearns 2001 {published data only}
    1. Kearns SR, Connolly EM, McNally S, McNamara DA, Deasy J. Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy. British Journal of Surgery 2001;88(1):41‐4. - PubMed
Marsh 2015 {published data only}
    1. Marsh DJ, Fox A, Grobbelaar AO, Chana JS. Abdominoplasty and seroma: a prospective randomised study comparing scalpel and handheld electrocautery dissection. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 2015;68(2):192‐6. - PubMed
Pearlman 1991 {published data only}
    1. Pearlman NW, Stiegmann GV, Vance V, Norton LW, Bell RC, Staerkel R, et al. A prospective study of incisional time, blood loss, pain, and healing with carbon dioxide laser, scalpel, and electrosurgery. Archives of Surgery 1991;126(8):1018‐20. - PubMed
Prakash 2015 {published data only}
    1. Prakash LD, Balaji N, Kumar SS, Kate V. Comparison of electrocautery incision with scalpel incision in midline abdominal surgery: a double blind randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Surgery 2015;19:78‐82. - PubMed
Rongetti 2014 {published data only}
    1. Rongetti RL, Oliveira e Castro PD, Vieira RA, Serrano SV, Mengatto MF, Fregnani JH. Surgical site infection: an observer‐blind, randomized trial comparing electrocautery and conventional scalpel. International Journal of Surgery 2014;12(7):681‐7. - PubMed
Shivagouda 2010 {published data only}
    1. Shivagouda P, Gogeri BV, Godhi AS, Metgud SC. Prospective randomized control trial comparing the efficacy of diathermy incision versus scalpel incision over skin in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Recent Research in Science and Technology 2010;2(8):44‐7.
Siraj 2011 {published data only}
    1. Siraj A, Gilani AA, Dar MF, Raziq S. Elective midline laparotomy: comparison of diathermy and scalpel incisions. Professional Medical Journal 2011;18:106‐11.
Telfer 1993 {published data only}
    1. Telfer JR, Canning G, Galloway DJ. Comparative study of abdominal incision techniques. British Journal of Surgery 1993;80(2):233‐5. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Aird 2015 {published data only}
    1. Aird LN, Bristol SG, Phang PT, Raval MJ, Brown CJ. Randomized double‐blind trial comparing the cosmetic outcome of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incisions. British Journal of Surgery 2015;102(5):489‐94. - PubMed
Chrysos 2005 {published data only}
    1. Chrysos E, Athanasakis E, Antonakakis S, Xynos E, Zoras O. A prospective study comparing diathermy and scalpel incisions in tension‐free inguinal hernioplasty. American Surgeon 2005;71(4):326‐9. [PMID: 15943407] - PubMed
Duxbury 2003 {published data only}
    1. Duxbury MS, Blake SM, Dashfield A, Lambert AW. A randomised trial of knife versus diathermy in pilonidal disease. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2003;85(6):405‐7. [DOI: 10.1308/003588403322520799] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Franchi 2001 {published data only}
    1. Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Benedetti‐Panici PL, Melpignano M, Fallo L, Tateo S, et al. A multicentre collaborative study on the use of cold scalpel and electrocautery for midline abdominal incision. American Journal of Surgery 2001;181(2):128‐32. [PMID: 11425052] - PubMed
Ji 2006 {published data only}
    1. Ji GW, Wu YZ, Wang X, Pan HX, Li P, Du WY, et al. Experimental and clinical study of influence of high‐frequency electric surgical knives on healing of abdominal incision. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2006;12(25):4082‐5. - PMC - PubMed
Keel 2002 {published data only}
    1. Keel DM, Goldman MP, Fitzpatrick RE, Butterwick KJ. Diamond laser scalpel vs steel scalpel: a side by side comparison of cutaneous wound healing. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 2002;31(1):41‐4. [DOI: 10.1002/lsm.10072] - DOI - PubMed
Miller 1988 {published data only}
    1. Miller E, Paull DE, Morrissey K, Cortese A, Nowak E. Scalpel versus electrocautery in modified radical mastectomy. American Surgeon 1988;54(5):284‐6. [PMID: 3364865] - PubMed
Porter 1998 {published data only}
    1. Porter KA, O'Connor S, Rimm E, Lopez M. Electrocautery as a factor in seroma formation following mastectomy. American Journal of Surgery 1998;176(1):8‐11. [PMID: 9683123] - PubMed
Shamim 2009 {published data only}
    1. Shamim M. Diathermy vs. scalpel skin incisions in general surgery: double‐blind, randomized, clinical trial. World Journal of Surgery 2009;33:1594‐9. - PubMed
Stupart 2016 {published data only}
    1. Stupart DA, Sim FW, Chan ZH, Guest GD, Watters DA. Cautery versus scalpel for abdominal skin incisions: a double blind, randomized crossover trial of scar cosmesis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 2016;86:303‐6. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Husnain 2006 {published data only}
    1. Husnain SS, Chaudhry AK, Tariq GR, Sheikh IA, Munir I. Comparison of frequency of postoperative wound infection with the use of scalpel/diathermy during elective cholecystectomy. Journal of Surgery Pakistan 2006;11(3):116‐8.
Upadhyay 2013 {published data only}
    1. Upadhyay S, Bansal N. Electrocautery versus scalpel incision in inguinal hernioplasty. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences 2013;4(4):499‐503.

Additional references

Anderson 2015
    1. Anderson TL, Thomassee MS. Principles of electrosurgery and laser energy applied to gynecologic surgery. In: Jones HW III, Rock JA editor(s). Te Linde's Operative Gynecology. 11th Edition. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer, 2015:249‐64.
Chang 2011
    1. Chang EI, Carlson GA, Vose JG, Huang EJ, Yang GP. Comparative healing of rat fascia following incision with three surgical instruments. Journal of Surgical Research 2011;167(1):e47‐54. - PubMed
Cruse 1980
    1. Cruse PJ, Foord R. The epidemiology of wound infection: a 10‐year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surgical Clinics of North America 1980;60:27‐40. - PubMed
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
GRADE 2013
    1. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editor(s), GRADE working group. GRADE Handbook. gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/central_prod/_design/client/handbook/handbo... (accessed 5 February 2016).
GRADEpro [Computer program]
    1. GRADE Working Group, McMaster University. GRADEpro. Hamilton (ON): GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2014.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Hróbjartsson 2012
    1. Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non‐blinded outcome assessors. BMJ 2012;344:e1119. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e1119] - DOI - PubMed
Keenan 1984
    1. Keenan KM, Rodeheaver GT, Kenney JG, Edlich RF. Surgical cautery revisited. American Journal of Surgery 1984;147:818‐21. - PubMed
Kontopantelis 2013
    1. Kontopantelis E, Springate DA, Reeves D. A re‐analysis of the Cochrane Library data: the dangers of unobserved heterogeneity in meta‐analyses. PloS One 2013;26:e69930. - PMC - PubMed
Kumagai 1991
    1. Kumagai SG, Rosales RF, Hunter GC, Rappaport WD, Witzke DB, Chvapil TA, et al. Effects of electrocautery on midline laparotomy wound infection. American Journal of Surgery 1991;162:620‐3. - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Loh 2009
    1. Loh SA, Carlson GA, Chang EI, Huang E, Palanker D, Gurtner GC. Comparative healing of surgical incisions created by the PEAK PlasmaBlade, conventional electrosurgery, and a scalpel. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2009;124(6):1849‐59. - PubMed
Madden 1970
    1. Madden JE, Edlich RF, Custer JR, Panek PH, Thul J, Wangensteen OH. Studies in the management of the contaminated wound. American Journal of Surgery 1970;119:222‐4. - PubMed
NICE 2008
    1. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Surgical site infection: prevention and treatment of surgical site infection. NICE Clinical guideline CG74, 2008. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg74 (accessed 2 May 2017).
Parmar 1998
    1. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta‐analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(30):2815‐34. - PubMed
Rappaport 1990
    1. Rappaport WD, Hunter GC, Allen R, Lick S, Halldorsson A, Chvapil T, et al. Effect of electrocautery on wound healing in midline laparotomy incisions. American Journal of Surgery 1990;160:618‐20. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
SIGN 2015
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Search filters. www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/filters.html#random (accessed 10 March 2017).
Soderstrom 2003
    1. Soderstrom R. Principles of electrosurgery as applied to gynecology. In: Rock JA, Jones HW III editor(s). Te Linde's Operative Gynecology. 9th Edition. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003:291‐308.
Tierney 2007
    1. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time‐to‐event data into meta‐analysis. Trials 2007;8:16. [DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Wang 2013
    1. Wang Y, Zeng T. Response to: practical methods for incorporating summary time‐to‐event data into meta‐analysis. Trials 2013;14:391. [DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-391] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Charoenkwan 2006
    1. Charoenkwan K, Chotirosniramit N, Rerkasem K. Scalpel versus electrosurgery for abdominal incisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005987] - DOI - PubMed
Charoenkwan 2012
    1. Charoenkwan K, Chotirosniramit N, Rerkasem K. Scalpel versus electrosurgery for abdominal incisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005987.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources