title: Cautery versus scalpel for abdominal skin incisions: a double blind, randomized crossover trial of scar cosmesis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is any difference in cosmetic outcome between using cutting diathermy and using a scalpel to make abdominal skin incisions.
  
  
  METHODS
  This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study. The primary end point was wound cosmesis as judged by the patient. In each case, one-half of the skin incision was made using diathermy, and one-half using a scalpel blade. Patients were contacted at 6 months post-operatively, and were asked which half of the wound looked better to them. A panel of 18 surgeons was also shown photographs of the wounds taken after 6 months, and were asked the same question.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of the 31 patients with complete follow-up, 11 (35%) reported no difference between the two halves of the wound. Nine (29%) preferred the half incised with diathermy, and 11 (35%) preferred the half incised with the scalpel (P = 0.82, chi-squared test). Twenty-four patients consented to having their wound photographed. There was no difference in the surgeons' preference between the diathermy and scalpel halves of the incision (P = 0.35, signed-rank test).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We found the use of cutting diathermy to make abdominal skin incisions to be cosmetically equivalent to cutting with the scalpel. As previous studies have not shown adverse wound outcomes using this technique, and considering the safety concerns for theatre staff when the scalpel is used, the routine use of cutting diathermy for skin incisions in abdominal surgery is justified.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: Douglas A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Stupart
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: Felix W
authors.initials: FW
authors.lastname: Sim
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: Zheng H
authors.initials: ZH
authors.lastname: Chan
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: Glenn D
authors.initials: GD
authors.lastname: Guest
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: David A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Watters
mesh_terms: D000005:Abdomen / Q000601:surgery*; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002921:Cicatrix / Q000209:etiology*; D003357:Cosmetic Techniques; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D062109:Dermatologic Surgical Procedures / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D003972:Diathermy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013525:Surgical Instruments; D013530:Surgical Wound Infection / Q000453:epidemiology
keywords: cosmesis; diathermy