Suppr超能文献

腹部切口使用手术刀与电刀的比较。

Scalpel versus electrosurgery for abdominal incisions.

作者信息

Charoenkwan Kittipat, Chotirosniramit Narain, Rerkasem Kittipan

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13(6):CD005987. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005987.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Scalpels or electrosurgery can be used to make abdominal incisions. The potential benefits of electrosurgery include reduced blood loss, dry and rapid separation of tissue, and reduced risk of cutting injury to surgeons, though there are concerns about poor wound healing, excessive scarring, and adhesion formation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects on wound complications of scalpel and electrosurgery for making abdominal incisions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 February 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February Week 3 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 23 February 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 07); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 February 2012). We did not apply date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects on wound complications of electrosurgery with scalpel use for the creation of abdominal incisions. The study participants were patients undergoing major open abdominal surgery, regardless of the orientation of the incision (vertical, oblique, or transverse) and surgical setting (elective or emergency). Electrosurgical incisions included those in which the major layers of abdominal wall, including subcutaneous tissue and musculoaponeurosis (a strong sheet of fibrous connective tissue that serves as a tendon to attach muscles), were made by electrosurgery, regardless of the techniques used to incise the abdominal skin and peritoneum. Scalpel incisions included those in which all major layers of abdominal wall including skin, subcutaneous tissue, and musculoaponeurosis, were incised by a scalpel, regardless of the techniques used on the abdominal peritoneum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias. One review author extracted data which were checked by a second review author. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and difference in means (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data. We examined heterogeneity between studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (1901 participants) which were mainly at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting. There was no statistically significant difference in overall wound complication rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.18), nor in rates of wound dehiscence (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.98), however both these comparisons are underpowered and a treatment effect cannot be excluded. There is insufficient reliable evidence regarding the effects of electrosurgery compared with scalpel incisions on blood loss, pain, and incision time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.

摘要

背景

手术刀或电外科手术均可用于腹部切口。电外科手术的潜在益处包括减少失血、组织干燥且分离迅速,以及降低外科医生遭受切割伤的风险,不过也有人担心其会导致伤口愈合不良、瘢痕过度形成和粘连。

目的

比较手术刀和电外科手术用于腹部切口对伤口并发症的影响。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane伤口组专业注册库(检索日期为2012年2月24日);Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2012年第2期);Ovid MEDLINE(1950年至2012年第3周);Ovid MEDLINE(在研及其他未索引文献,2012年2月23日);Ovid EMBASE(1980年至2012年第7周);以及EBSCO CINAHL(1982年至2012年2月17日)。我们未设日期或语言限制。

入选标准

随机对照试验(RCT),比较电外科手术与使用手术刀进行腹部切口对伤口并发症的影响。研究参与者为接受大型开放性腹部手术的患者,无论切口方向(垂直、斜向或横向)及手术类型(择期或急诊)。电外科切口包括通过电外科手术切开腹壁主要层次(包括皮下组织和肌筋膜,一种强韧的纤维结缔组织薄片,起肌腱作用连接肌肉)的切口,无论切开腹部皮肤和腹膜所采用的技术。手术刀切口包括通过手术刀切开腹壁所有主要层次(包括皮肤、皮下组织和肌筋膜)的切口,无论对腹部腹膜所采用的技术。

数据收集与分析

我们独立评估研究是否纳入及偏倚风险。一位综述作者提取数据,由另一位综述作者进行核对。对于二分数据,我们计算风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI);对于连续数据,我们计算均值差(MD)和95% CI。我们检验了研究间的异质性。

主要结果

我们纳入了9项RCT(1901名参与者),由于报告不佳,这些研究的偏倚风险大多不明确。总体伤口并发症发生率无统计学显著差异(RR 0.90,95% CI 0.68至1.18),伤口裂开率也无显著差异(RR 1.04,95% CI 0.36至2.98),然而这两项比较的效能均不足,不能排除存在治疗效果。关于电外科手术与手术刀切口相比对失血、疼痛和切口时间的影响,尚无足够可靠的证据。

作者结论

目前的证据表明,用电外科手术进行腹部切口可能与使用手术刀一样安全。然而,这些结论基于相对较少的事件,还需要更多研究。对于失血、疼痛和切口时间的结果,手术刀和电外科手术的相对影响尚不清楚。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验