Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size Users Online: 345
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 20-25

A comparative study of the use of harmonic scalpel versus unipolar cautery in modified radical mastectomy


1 Department of Surgery, Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, Punjab, India
2 Medical Student, All Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Pallavi Mittal
Department of Surgery, Ward No. 4, Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala - 147 001, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1117-6806.199962

Rights and Permissions

Context: Oncosurgery is an emerging branch with the set goals of prolonging the life and ensuring the best possible quality of life to the surviving patient. The use of harmonic scalpel has proved to be beneficial in a variety of surgeries but its role in breast surgery is still controversial. Aims: We conducted this study to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in modified radical mastectomy using harmonic scalpel versus electrocautery. Subjects and Methods: Fifty female patients with confirmed diagnosis of breast carcinoma and planned for modified radical mastectomy were taken up for surgery. Twenty-five patients were operated using harmonic scalpel (Group A) and another 25 were operated using unipolar cautery (Group B). Results: The mean operative time was significantly longer with harmonic scalpel when compared to that with electrocautery (140.40 ± 29.96 vs. 99.80 ± 24.00 min, P< 0.001). The smaller amount of drainage content (431.60 ± 145.94 vs. 594.20 ± 278.63, P = 0.013) and intraoperative blood loss (426.00 ± 76.54 vs. 502.00 ± 104.56, P = 0.005) in the group operated with the ultrasound harmonic scalpel was statistically significant. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to drain duration (5.24 ± 0.97, P = 0.127), seroma (12% vs. 16%, P = 0.684), hematoma (4% vs. 4%, P = 1.000), wound infection (24% vs. 32%, P = 0.529), flap necrosis (8% vs. 28%, P = 0.066), pain intensity (measured on visual analog scale) (5.08 ± 1.29 vs. 5.20 ± 1.68, P = 0.778), and lymphedema (4% vs. 8%, P = 0.552). The length of hospital stay could not be compared effectively because all the patients were discharged on the 10th or 11th postoperative day. The cost of the equipment used in the electrocautery group was almost negligible as compared to the harmonic group. Conclusions: The use of harmonic scalpel versus electrocautery is somewhat advantageous but not cost-effective.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed501    
    Printed35    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded64    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal