SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.27 número1 índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Em processo de indexaçãoCitado por Google
  • Em processo de indexaçãoSimilares em Google

Compartilhar


South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

versão On-line ISSN 2305-8862
versão impressa ISSN 0038-2329

Resumo

A-MAGEED, A et al. Diathermy v. scalpel Pfannenstiel incision in repeated caesarean sections: A randomised controlled trial. SAJOG [online]. 2022, vol.27, n.1, pp.4-7. ISSN 2305-8862.  http://dx.doi.org/10.7196/SAJOG.2022.v27i1.2066.

BACKGROUND. Most surgeons do not choose diathermy over scalpel skin incision, as they speculate that the thermal effect produced owing to tissue resistance to electrical current may lead to postoperative pain, delayed wound healing and wound complications. OBJECTIVE. To compare the use of cutting diathermy skin incision with scalpel skin incision with regard to incision time, haemostasis, postoperative pain, wound healing and wound complications. METHODS. A randomised controlled trial was performed on 476 women who underwent caesarean sections. They were randomised into two groups: group 1 (women scheduled for conventional scalpel skin incision) and group 2 (women scheduled for cutting diathermy skin incision). RESULTS. The incision time, blood loss, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score and doses needed for analgesia were significantly lower in group 2 than in group 1 (p<0.001). The groups did not show any significant difference regarding wound complications. Wound healing in both groups was by primary intention. CONCLUSIONS. Diathermy skin incision is superior to scalpel skin incision, with no postoperative pain and good wound healing.

        · texto em Inglês     · Inglês ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons