Comparison of Different Types of Cutting Devices in Surgery (Review)

  • Authors

    • Victor Aleksandrovich Stupin
    • Natalia Evgenievna Manturova
    • Aleksei Alekseevich Donskikh
    • Ekaterina Vladimirovna Silina
    2018-12-03
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.38.24618
  • Electrosurgery, Knife, Laser surgery, Plastic surgery, Radio wave surgery, Radiofrequency electrosurgery, Scalpel, Skin, Wound healing, Ultrasound scalpel.

  • The present work presents a description of various cutting devices with an emphasis on skin surgery for the optimal choice of instruments in plastic surgery. Physical principles of work with a description of the biological role of an ultrasonic scalpel, various laser cutting devices, electrosurgical instruments, including radiofrequency electrosurgery, are described. Studies of recent years, including systematic reviews and meta-analyzes, are devoted to comparative analysis of various cutting and coagulating devices among themselves and in comparison with the mechanical metal scalpel.

     

  • References

    1. [1] American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2014 Complete Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics?sub=2014+Plastic+Surgery+Statistics#section-title

      [2] Milothridis P, Pavlidis L, Haidich A & Panagopoulou E (2016), A systematic review of the factors predicting the interest in cosmetic plastic surgery. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery 49(3), 397-402.

      [3] Frederick DA, Lever J & Peplau LA (2007), Interest in cosmetic surgery and body image: Views of men and women across the lifespan. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 120:1407-1415.

      [4] Barnes L, Marshall CD, Leavitt T, Hu MS, Moore AL, Gonzalez JG, Longaker MT & Gurtner GC (2018), Mechanical Forces in Cutaneous Wound Healing: Emerging Therapies to Minimize Scar Formation. Advances in Wound Care (New Rochelle) 7(2), 47–56.

      [5] Schneider D, Goppold K, Kaemmerer PW, Schoen G, Woehlke M & Bschorer R (2018). Use of ultrasonic scalpel and monopolar electrocautery for skin incisions in neck dissection: a prospective randomized trial. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 22(2), 169-175.

      [6] Matthey-Gié ML, Gié O, DS, Demartines N, Matter M (2016), Prospective Randomized Study to Compare Lymphocele and Lymphorrhea Control Following Inguinal and Axillary Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection with or Without the Use of an Ultrasonic Scalpel. Annals of Surgical Oncology 23(5), 1716-20.

      [7] Chen XL, Chen XZ, Lu ZH, Wang L, Yang K, Hu JK, Zhang B, Chen ZX, Chen JP & Zhou ZG (2014), Comparison of ultrasonic scalpel versus conventional techniques in open gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 9(7), e103330.

      [8] Qu W, Shang J, Liu L, Xu D, Du P & Liu Z (2018), Comparative study on the incision healing of the palatal mucosa by using Er:YAG laser or traditional scalpel in the SD rats. Lasers in Medical Science 33(5), 1019-1024.

      [9] Ryu SW, Lee SH, Yoon HJ (2012), A comparative histological and immunohistochemical study of wound healing following incision with a scalpel, CO2 laser or Er,Cr:YSGG laser in the guinea pig oral mucosa. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 70(6), 448-454.

      [10] Suragimath G, Lohana MH & Varma S (2016), A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Comparative Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Gingival Depigmentation Procedure Using Conventional Scalpel Technique or Diode Laser. Lasers in Medical Science 7(4):227-232.

      [11] Alhabashneh R, Darawi O, Khader YS & Ashour L (2018), Gingival depigmentation using Er:YAG laser and scalpel technique: A six-month prospective clinical study. Quintessence International 49(2), 113-122.

      [12] Amaral MB, de Ãvila JM, Abreu MH & Mesquita RA (2015), Diode laser surgery versus scalpel surgery in the treatment of fibrous hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 44(11), 1383-1389.

      [13] Scott JE, Swanson EA, Cooley J, Wills RW & Pearce EC (2017), Healing of canine skin incisions made with monopolar electrosurgery versus scalpel blade. Veterinary Surgery 46(4), 520-529.

      [14] Ismail A, Abushouk AI, Elmaraezy A, Menshawy A, Menshawy E, Ismail M, Samir E, Khaled A, Zakarya H, El-Tonoby A & Ghanem E (2017), Cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Surgical Research 220, 147-163.

      [15] Charoenkwan K, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Rerkasem K & Matovinovic E (2017), Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 6, CD005987.

      [16] Niamtu J (2014), Esthetic removal of head and neck nevi and lesions with 4.0-MHz radio-wave surgery: a 30-year experience. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 72(6), 1139-1150.

      [17] Niamtu J (2008), Radiowave surgery versus CO laser for upper blepharoplasty incision: which modality produces the most aesthetic incision? Dermatologic Surgery 34(7):912-921.

      [18] Hasar ZB, Ozmeric N, Ozdemir B, Gökmenoğlu C, Baris E, Altan G & Kahraman S (2016), Comparison of Radiofrequency and Electrocautery with Conventional Scalpel Incisions. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 74(11), 2136-2141.

      [19] Silverman EB, Read RW, Boyle CR, Cooper R, Miller WW & McLaughlin RM (2007), Histologic comparison of canine skin biopsies collected using monopolar electrosurgery, CO2 laser, radiowave radiosurgery, skin biopsy punch, and scalpel. Veterinary Surgery 36(1), 50-56.

      [20] Schoinohoriti OK, Chrysomali E, Tzerbos F & Iatrou I (2012), Comparison of lateral thermal injury and healing of porcine skin incisions performed by CO2-laser, monopolar electrosurgery and radiosurgery: a preliminary study based on histological and immunohistochemical results. International Journal of Dermatology 51(8), 979-986.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Aleksandrovich Stupin, V., Evgenievna Manturova, N., Alekseevich Donskikh, A., & Vladimirovna Silina, E. (2018). Comparison of Different Types of Cutting Devices in Surgery (Review). International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.38), 538-541. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.38.24618