A comparative study of the no scalpel and standard incision approaches to vasectomy in 5 countries. The Male Sterilization Investigator Team. Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy. Electrosurgical skin incision versus conventional scalpel: a prospective trial. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of primary wound closure after lateral internal sphincterotomy. Electrocautery used to create incisions does not increase wound infection rates. Randomized trial comparing cryopreserved cultured epidermal allografts with hydrocolloid dressings in healing chronic venous ulcers. A prospective study of incisional time, blood loss, pain, and healing with carbon dioxide laser, scalpel, and electrosurgery. Randomised trial comparing LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy with the diathermy dissection operation. A randomized comparison of suturing techniques for episiotomy and laceration repair after spontaneous vaginal birth.
We compare the safety, ease of use and effectiveness of the no scalpel and standard incision approaches to vasectomy.
                A multicenter, randomized, partially masked controlled trial was conducted at 8 sites in Brazil, Guatemala, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Semen samples were collected 10 weeks postoperatively and tested to ascertain sterility using verification of no living spermatozoa.
                The study included 1,429 men seeking vasectomy. The efficacy of the 2 approaches was virtually identical. In the no scalpel group operating time was significantly shorter, and complications and pain were less frequent than in the standard incision group. The no scalpel group resumed intercourse sooner, probably as a result of less pain following the procedure.
                The no scalpel approach is an important advance in the surgical approach to vasectomy, and offers fewer side effects and greater comfort compared to the standard incision technique, without compromising efficacy. Electrocautery is used increasingly for tissue dissection, although fears of excessive scarring and poor wound healing have curtailed its widespread use for skin incision. This study compared electrosurgical incision with traditional scalpel incision.
                One hundred patients requiring elective midline laparotomy were randomized prospectively to either scalpel or diathermy incision. Parameters measured included incision time, wound size, wound blood loss, total intraoperative blood loss and postoperative wound pain. All wound complications were recorded.
                The two groups did not differ significantly in relation to patient or wound characteristics. Laparotomy incisions using diathermy were significantly quicker than scalpel incisions (mean(s. e.m.) 6.1(0.4) versus 7.5(0.5) s/cm2; P < 0.04). There was significantly less blood loss in the diathermy group compared with the scalpel group (0.8(0.1) versus 1.7(0.3) ml/cm2; P = 0.002). Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the diathermy group for the first 48 h after operation (P < 0.05). Morphine requirements were also significantly lower over the first 5 postoperative days in the diathermy incision group (P < 0.04). There was no difference between groups in wound complications before discharge and at the 1-month follow-up.
                Electrosurgical midline incision in elective surgery has significant advantages over scalpel use on the basis of incision time, blood loss, early postoperative pain and analgesia requirements. A controlled clinical study comparing skin incision by conventional scalpel with electrosurgical needle incision has shown the latter technique to be highly effective, consistently quicker, and to give better cosmetic results with minimal complications. It is a convenient technique and well tolerated by the patients with no added discomfort. Skin diathermy burns and wound haematomas were only seen after conventional scalpel incision. Fears of delayed wound healing, keloid formation and high infection rates are unfounded. Much of the lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) complications is related to LIS incision. In this study, incisions sutured primarily or left to secondary healing after open LIS procedure are compared regarding the wound healing and complications associated with wounds.
                Planning a prospective, randomized clinical study, 39 patients were separated into two groups. Open LIS was performed on both of the groups. While the incisions of the patients in group 1 (n = 22) were closed with two interrupted sutures using 3-0 chromic catgut, the incisions of the patients in group 2 (n = 17) were left open. The patients were followed up for 90 days postoperatively.
                Hematoma in 1 (4.5%), ecchymosis in 7 (31.8%), and wound infection in 1 (4.5%) developed in patients of group 1. In this group no significant external bleeding was seen. Wound healing duration was 15.05 +/- 5.60 days. In group 2 no hematoma developed (P = 0.98), but 2 (11.7%) ecchymoses (P = 0.25), 4 (23.5%), wound infections (P = 0.14), and 3 (17.6%) postoperative significant external bleedings (P = 0.07) were seen. Wound healing duration was 33.94 +/- 6.67 days (P <0.001).
                To achieve early wound healing, primary closure of open LIS incision is useful, but this technique has no significant effect on wound-related complications in comparison with secondary healing. A prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial was conducted to determine whether electrocautery as a means of creating abdominal or thoracic wounds would result in increased wound infection rates. Over a 15-month period, 492 consecutively studied patients were randomly placed into 1 of 2 groups: scalpel or electrocautery. There were no differences in age grouping, use of steroids, incidence of diabetes, number of days preoperative, operative time, use of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, use of drains, number of obese patients, or gender ratio. Wound infections developed in 38 of the 250 scalpel patients (15%) and in 30 of the 242 cautery patients (12%). The use of electrocautery to create surgical wounds does not increase wound infection rates. Cultured epidermal allografts have been successfully used to treat a variety of wounds. Their postulated mechanism of action is through release of cytokines that stimulate epithelialization. On the basis of previous experience we expected ulcers treated with cryopreserved cultured allografts (CCAs) to be healed by 6 weeks. Hydrocolloid dressings (HCDs) have also been reported to be effective in the treatment of venous ulcers.
                Our purpose was to compare the effectiveness of CCAs with HCDs in healing chronic venous ulcers.
                Forty-three patients with 47 ulcers were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. Ulcers not healed by 6 weeks were changed to the other treatment.
                No difference in the number of healed ulcers between the two groups was observed at 6 weeks. Healing rate, percent reduction of initial ulcer size, and radial progression toward wound closure were significantly greater for CCAs than for HCDs. Pain relief was not significantly different.
                CCAs achieve more rapid healing and greater reduction in ulcer size than HCDs. Carbon dioxide laser incisions are reported to be less painful, less bloody, and less prone to seroma formation and to heal better than scalpel or electrosurgical incisions. We compared all three modalities in a prospective randomized study of cholecystectomy incisions. Time required for the incision and incisional blood loss was less with electrosurgery than with the carbon dioxide laser or scalpel. Postoperative pain and wound healing, however, were the same for all three techniques. The carbon dioxide laser appears to offer no advantage over conventional means of making a standard incision. The study was designed to compare LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy with open haemorrhoidectomy performed by means of diathermy excision. Fifty-sixty consecutive patients with third- and fourth-degree haemorrhoids were randomly allocated to undergo either LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy (29 patients) or diathermy haemorrhoidectomy (27 patients). All patients were evaluated for operative time, pain, post-operative analgesic requirements, time to first bowel movement, length of hospital stay, wound healing period, time to return to work, and occurrence of early postoperative complications (such as urinary dysfunction, bleeding, soiling, seepage, continence disorders) and late complications (such as stenosis). A statistically significant advantage was observed in the patients who received the LigaSure technique as far as concerns length of operative time (9.2 vs. 12.2 min, p<0.001), post-operative analgesic requirements (14.1 vs. 16.8 administrations, p<0.001), wound healing period (16.3 vs. 37.5 days, p< 0.0001), and time to return to work (8.3 vs. 18.3 days, p<0.01). No significant difference was seen in the postoperative pain score, complications rate, first bowel motion or hospital stay. No recurrence was observed at the 6-month follow-up. In conclusion, our experience shows that the LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy offers definite advantages over the classic diathermy technique. This procedure is easier, safer, and more rapid to perform and is followed by a faster wound healing time, a significantly shorter hospital stay, less postoperative pain and faster wound healing. To compare the continuous knotless technique of perineal repair with the interrupted method after spontaneous vaginal birth
                A randomized controlled trial.
                Canadian Task Force Classification I.
                This study was undertaken in a university hospital with more than 2200 deliveries per year. The static population of this district includes a wide range of socioeconomic classes and is predominately white.
                From May 1 to November 19, 2003, 214 primiparous women with a second-degree perineal tear or episiotomy were randomly allocated to either the continuous knotless technique (CKT; n=107) or the interrupted technique (IT; n=107) suturing method.
                The interrupted technique (IT) involves placing 3 layers of sutures whereas the continuous knotless technique (CKT) involves reapproximating vaginal trauma, perineal muscles, and skin with a loose, continuous, nonlocking technique.
                The primary outcomes of the study were perineal pain (evaluated by visual analogue scale) at 48 hours and day 10 and dyspareunia 3 months after delivery. Secondary outcomes included suture removal, wound dehiscence, analgesia use up to 48 hours, and satisfaction with repair established at 3 and 12 months after childbirth. At day 10, 19 women had dropped out of the study. Significantly fewer women reported pain at 10 days with the CKT than with the IT (32.3% vs 60.4%; p<.001). Analgesia use up to 48 hours postpartum was less in the CKT group than in the IT group (33.6% vs 54.2%; p<.05). No difference was found in superficial dyspareunia at 3 months for the CKT versus the IT group.
                The use of a continuous knotless technique for perineal repair is associated with less short-term pain than techniques with interrupted sutures.
The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. No difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches.