Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2071596144> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 80 of
80
with 100 items per page.
- W2071596144 endingPage "494" @default.
- W2071596144 startingPage "489" @default.
- W2071596144 abstract "Abstract Background Controversy exists about whether cutting diathermy for skin incisions leads to a cosmetically inferior scar. Cosmetic outcomes were compared between skin incisions created with cutting diathermy versus scalpel. Wound infection rates and postoperative incisional pain were also compared. Methods This was a randomized double-blind trial comparing cutting diathermy and scalpel in patients undergoing bowel resection. Scar cosmesis was assessed at 6 months after surgery by a plastic surgeon and a research associate using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Patients also used POSAS to self-evaluate their scars. Wound infections within 30 days were recorded, and incision pain scores were measured on the first 5 days after operation. Results A total of 66 patients were randomized to cutting diathermy (31) or scalpel (35). At 6 months, there was no significant difference between the diathermy and scalpel groups in mean(s.d.) VSS scores (4·9(2·6) versus 5·0(1·9); P = 0·837), mean POSAS total scores (19·2(8·0) versus 20·0(7·4); P = 0·684) or subjective POSAS total scores (20·2(12·1) versus 21·3(10·4); P = 0·725). Neither were there significant differences in wound infection rates between the groups (5 of 30 versus 5 of 32; P = 1·000). Pain scores on day 1 after operation were significantly lower in the diathermy group (mean 1·68 versus 3·13; P = 0·018), but were not significantly different on days 2–5. Conclusion Cutting diathermy is a cosmetically acceptable technique for abdominal skin incisions. There is no increased risk of wound infection, and diathermy may convey benefit in terms of early postoperative wound pain. Registration number: NCT01496404 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)." @default.
- W2071596144 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2071596144 creator A5006639145 @default.
- W2071596144 creator A5025537811 @default.
- W2071596144 creator A5045591282 @default.
- W2071596144 creator A5057406139 @default.
- W2071596144 creator A5071271944 @default.
- W2071596144 date "2015-02-18" @default.
- W2071596144 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
- W2071596144 title "Randomized double-blind trial comparing the cosmetic outcome of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incisions" @default.
- W2071596144 cites W1606096607 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W1968067754 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W1969681306 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W1976032099 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W1980761012 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W1995491118 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W2035626251 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W2038759171 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W2055102039 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W2057467361 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W2075437364 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W2098750549 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W2112784789 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W2125322894 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W2798795107 @default.
- W2071596144 cites W4245429820 @default.
- W2071596144 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9751" @default.
- W2071596144 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25692789" @default.
- W2071596144 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
- W2071596144 type Work @default.
- W2071596144 sameAs 2071596144 @default.
- W2071596144 citedByCount "13" @default.
- W2071596144 countsByYear W20715961442016 @default.
- W2071596144 countsByYear W20715961442017 @default.
- W2071596144 countsByYear W20715961442018 @default.
- W2071596144 countsByYear W20715961442019 @default.
- W2071596144 countsByYear W20715961442020 @default.
- W2071596144 countsByYear W20715961442021 @default.
- W2071596144 countsByYear W20715961442023 @default.
- W2071596144 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2071596144 hasAuthorship W2071596144A5006639145 @default.
- W2071596144 hasAuthorship W2071596144A5025537811 @default.
- W2071596144 hasAuthorship W2071596144A5045591282 @default.
- W2071596144 hasAuthorship W2071596144A5057406139 @default.
- W2071596144 hasAuthorship W2071596144A5071271944 @default.
- W2071596144 hasBestOaLocation W20715961441 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConcept C2777642821 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConcept C2780943399 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConcept C2781131426 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConceptScore W2071596144C141071460 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConceptScore W2071596144C168563851 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConceptScore W2071596144C2777642821 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConceptScore W2071596144C2780943399 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConceptScore W2071596144C2781131426 @default.
- W2071596144 hasConceptScore W2071596144C71924100 @default.
- W2071596144 hasIssue "5" @default.
- W2071596144 hasLocation W20715961441 @default.
- W2071596144 hasLocation W20715961442 @default.
- W2071596144 hasOpenAccess W2071596144 @default.
- W2071596144 hasPrimaryLocation W20715961441 @default.
- W2071596144 hasRelatedWork W2011177479 @default.
- W2071596144 hasRelatedWork W2071596144 @default.
- W2071596144 hasRelatedWork W2094604708 @default.
- W2071596144 hasRelatedWork W2604830893 @default.
- W2071596144 hasRelatedWork W2950563126 @default.
- W2071596144 hasRelatedWork W2971781234 @default.
- W2071596144 hasRelatedWork W3025995359 @default.
- W2071596144 hasRelatedWork W3029515353 @default.
- W2071596144 hasRelatedWork W3049421753 @default.
- W2071596144 hasRelatedWork W3123669550 @default.
- W2071596144 hasVolume "102" @default.
- W2071596144 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2071596144 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2071596144 magId "2071596144" @default.
- W2071596144 workType "article" @default.