Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial
Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the volume of blood loss, wound incision time and wound complication according to use of scalpel or electrosurgery during the creation of transverse abdominal incisions during repeated cesarean section (CS). Material and Methods A randomized controlled trial...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research 2015-10, Vol.41 (10), p.1541-1546 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1546 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 1541 |
| container_title | The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Elbohoty, Ahmed E. H. Gomaa, Mostafa F. Abdelaleim, Mohamed Abd-El-Gawad, Magdi Elmarakby, Mohamed |
| description | Aim
The aim of this study was to evaluate the volume of blood loss, wound incision time and wound complication according to use of scalpel or electrosurgery during the creation of transverse abdominal incisions during repeated cesarean section (CS).
Material and Methods
A randomized controlled trial was carried out at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital. We recruited 130 women with a history of one previous CS at the time of their planned lower‐segment CS. Participants were randomized to anterior abdominal wall opening from subcutaneous tissue till the peritoneum by either the use of scalpel with disposable blade (No. 22) or diathermy using the standard diathermy pen electrode. The main outcome measures were the volume of blood loss from skin incision to the end of the peritoneal incision, the operative time and wound complication.
Results
We observed a highly significant difference between the two groups in blood loss (median [interquartile range], 11 [8–15.25] g for the diathermy group vs 20 [18–23] g for the scalpel group, P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jog.12776 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1721354902</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1721354902</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4226-7fffdac1dc8d467ce76cebb7fb31bc283bccbf8e6e74f9776503be2c951fa37a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM9u1DAQhy0EoqVw4AWQj3BIG8eOnXBrC13-VC1IRRwt2xkvLo692AlleQCeG4dte2MuM5r55jv8EHpO6kNS6ug6rg9JIwR_gPYJY6KqRcsflpkyUnW14HvoSc7XdU1ET7rHaK_hjHFG-D7688ap6RukcYt_QspzxtkovwGPXcBTUiEva8BKD3F0QS1747KLYQFu4ggBz2GAtI4urHGCDagJBmwgqwQq4AxmKvRrfIyLbZH8Xs4xTCl6X8YpOeWfokdW-QzPbvsB-nL29ur0XXV-uXp_enxeGdY0vBLW2kEZMphuYFwYENyA1sJqSrRpOqqN0bYDDoLZvgTS1lRDY_qWWEWFogfo5c67SfHHDHmSo8sGvFcB4pwlEQ2hLevrpqCvdqhJMecEVm6SG1XaSlLLJXZZYpf_Yi_si1vtrEcY7sm7nAtwtANunIft_03yw-XqTlntPlye4Nf9h0rfJRdUtPLrxUpenXw867tPn-UF_QvRKqAa</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1721354902</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Elbohoty, Ahmed E. H. ; Gomaa, Mostafa F. ; Abdelaleim, Mohamed ; Abd-El-Gawad, Magdi ; Elmarakby, Mohamed</creator><creatorcontrib>Elbohoty, Ahmed E. H. ; Gomaa, Mostafa F. ; Abdelaleim, Mohamed ; Abd-El-Gawad, Magdi ; Elmarakby, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
The aim of this study was to evaluate the volume of blood loss, wound incision time and wound complication according to use of scalpel or electrosurgery during the creation of transverse abdominal incisions during repeated cesarean section (CS).
Material and Methods
A randomized controlled trial was carried out at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital. We recruited 130 women with a history of one previous CS at the time of their planned lower‐segment CS. Participants were randomized to anterior abdominal wall opening from subcutaneous tissue till the peritoneum by either the use of scalpel with disposable blade (No. 22) or diathermy using the standard diathermy pen electrode. The main outcome measures were the volume of blood loss from skin incision to the end of the peritoneal incision, the operative time and wound complication.
Results
We observed a highly significant difference between the two groups in blood loss (median [interquartile range], 11 [8–15.25] g for the diathermy group vs 20 [18–23] g for the scalpel group, P < 0.001) and skin‐to‐peritoneum incision time (median [interquartile range], 7 [5–7.25] min for the diathermy group vs 10 [7–11] min for the scalpel group, P < 0.001). The postoperative pain was less in the diathermy group but wound complications showed no statistical difference.
Conclusion
The use of diathermy in the opening of anterior abdominal wall during CS decreases blood loss and operative time but has no impact on postoperative pain or wound complications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1341-8076</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1447-0756</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jog.12776</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26446416</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; cesarean section ; Cesarean Section, Repeat - instrumentation ; Cesarean Section, Repeat - statistics & numerical data ; diathermy ; Electrocoagulation - statistics & numerical data ; Female ; Humans ; Pregnancy ; scalpel ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 2015-10, Vol.41 (10), p.1541-1546</ispartof><rights>2015 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology</rights><rights>2015 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4226-7fffdac1dc8d467ce76cebb7fb31bc283bccbf8e6e74f9776503be2c951fa37a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4226-7fffdac1dc8d467ce76cebb7fb31bc283bccbf8e6e74f9776503be2c951fa37a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjog.12776$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjog.12776$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26446416$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Elbohoty, Ahmed E. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gomaa, Mostafa F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelaleim, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abd-El-Gawad, Magdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmarakby, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><title>Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial</title><title>The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research</title><addtitle>J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res</addtitle><description>Aim
The aim of this study was to evaluate the volume of blood loss, wound incision time and wound complication according to use of scalpel or electrosurgery during the creation of transverse abdominal incisions during repeated cesarean section (CS).
Material and Methods
A randomized controlled trial was carried out at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital. We recruited 130 women with a history of one previous CS at the time of their planned lower‐segment CS. Participants were randomized to anterior abdominal wall opening from subcutaneous tissue till the peritoneum by either the use of scalpel with disposable blade (No. 22) or diathermy using the standard diathermy pen electrode. The main outcome measures were the volume of blood loss from skin incision to the end of the peritoneal incision, the operative time and wound complication.
Results
We observed a highly significant difference between the two groups in blood loss (median [interquartile range], 11 [8–15.25] g for the diathermy group vs 20 [18–23] g for the scalpel group, P < 0.001) and skin‐to‐peritoneum incision time (median [interquartile range], 7 [5–7.25] min for the diathermy group vs 10 [7–11] min for the scalpel group, P < 0.001). The postoperative pain was less in the diathermy group but wound complications showed no statistical difference.
Conclusion
The use of diathermy in the opening of anterior abdominal wall during CS decreases blood loss and operative time but has no impact on postoperative pain or wound complications.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>cesarean section</subject><subject>Cesarean Section, Repeat - instrumentation</subject><subject>Cesarean Section, Repeat - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>diathermy</subject><subject>Electrocoagulation - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>scalpel</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1341-8076</issn><issn>1447-0756</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM9u1DAQhy0EoqVw4AWQj3BIG8eOnXBrC13-VC1IRRwt2xkvLo692AlleQCeG4dte2MuM5r55jv8EHpO6kNS6ug6rg9JIwR_gPYJY6KqRcsflpkyUnW14HvoSc7XdU1ET7rHaK_hjHFG-D7688ap6RukcYt_QspzxtkovwGPXcBTUiEva8BKD3F0QS1747KLYQFu4ggBz2GAtI4urHGCDagJBmwgqwQq4AxmKvRrfIyLbZH8Xs4xTCl6X8YpOeWfokdW-QzPbvsB-nL29ur0XXV-uXp_enxeGdY0vBLW2kEZMphuYFwYENyA1sJqSrRpOqqN0bYDDoLZvgTS1lRDY_qWWEWFogfo5c67SfHHDHmSo8sGvFcB4pwlEQ2hLevrpqCvdqhJMecEVm6SG1XaSlLLJXZZYpf_Yi_si1vtrEcY7sm7nAtwtANunIft_03yw-XqTlntPlye4Nf9h0rfJRdUtPLrxUpenXw867tPn-UF_QvRKqAa</recordid><startdate>201510</startdate><enddate>201510</enddate><creator>Elbohoty, Ahmed E. H.</creator><creator>Gomaa, Mostafa F.</creator><creator>Abdelaleim, Mohamed</creator><creator>Abd-El-Gawad, Magdi</creator><creator>Elmarakby, Mohamed</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201510</creationdate><title>Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial</title><author>Elbohoty, Ahmed E. H. ; Gomaa, Mostafa F. ; Abdelaleim, Mohamed ; Abd-El-Gawad, Magdi ; Elmarakby, Mohamed</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4226-7fffdac1dc8d467ce76cebb7fb31bc283bccbf8e6e74f9776503be2c951fa37a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>cesarean section</topic><topic>Cesarean Section, Repeat - instrumentation</topic><topic>Cesarean Section, Repeat - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>diathermy</topic><topic>Electrocoagulation - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>scalpel</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Elbohoty, Ahmed E. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gomaa, Mostafa F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelaleim, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abd-El-Gawad, Magdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmarakby, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Elbohoty, Ahmed E. H.</au><au>Gomaa, Mostafa F.</au><au>Abdelaleim, Mohamed</au><au>Abd-El-Gawad, Magdi</au><au>Elmarakby, Mohamed</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial</atitle><jtitle>The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research</jtitle><addtitle>J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res</addtitle><date>2015-10</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1541</spage><epage>1546</epage><pages>1541-1546</pages><issn>1341-8076</issn><eissn>1447-0756</eissn><abstract>Aim
The aim of this study was to evaluate the volume of blood loss, wound incision time and wound complication according to use of scalpel or electrosurgery during the creation of transverse abdominal incisions during repeated cesarean section (CS).
Material and Methods
A randomized controlled trial was carried out at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital. We recruited 130 women with a history of one previous CS at the time of their planned lower‐segment CS. Participants were randomized to anterior abdominal wall opening from subcutaneous tissue till the peritoneum by either the use of scalpel with disposable blade (No. 22) or diathermy using the standard diathermy pen electrode. The main outcome measures were the volume of blood loss from skin incision to the end of the peritoneal incision, the operative time and wound complication.
Results
We observed a highly significant difference between the two groups in blood loss (median [interquartile range], 11 [8–15.25] g for the diathermy group vs 20 [18–23] g for the scalpel group, P < 0.001) and skin‐to‐peritoneum incision time (median [interquartile range], 7 [5–7.25] min for the diathermy group vs 10 [7–11] min for the scalpel group, P < 0.001). The postoperative pain was less in the diathermy group but wound complications showed no statistical difference.
Conclusion
The use of diathermy in the opening of anterior abdominal wall during CS decreases blood loss and operative time but has no impact on postoperative pain or wound complications.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>26446416</pmid><doi>10.1111/jog.12776</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1341-8076 |
| ispartof | The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 2015-10, Vol.41 (10), p.1541-1546 |
| issn | 1341-8076 1447-0756 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1721354902 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Adult cesarean section Cesarean Section, Repeat - instrumentation Cesarean Section, Repeat - statistics & numerical data diathermy Electrocoagulation - statistics & numerical data Female Humans Pregnancy scalpel Young Adult |
| title | Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T16%3A53%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diathermy%20versus%20scalpel%20in%20transverse%20abdominal%20incision%20in%20women%20undergoing%20repeated%20cesarean%20section:%20A%20randomized%20controlled%20trial&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynaecology%20research&rft.au=Elbohoty,%20Ahmed%20E.%20H.&rft.date=2015-10&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1541&rft.epage=1546&rft.pages=1541-1546&rft.issn=1341-8076&rft.eissn=1447-0756&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jog.12776&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1721354902%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1721354902&rft_id=info:pmid/26446416&rfr_iscdi=true |