PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 31, 2026Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Cancer Research0 citationsOpen Access

Scalpel versus Cutting Diathermy Skin Incision in Primary Cesarean Section in Patients Undergoing Anticoagulant Therapy using Low Molecular Weight Heparin: A Randomized Controlled Trial

MSMona SediekSKSanaa G. KashmarAGAmir Arabi Gabr

Key Points

  • To compare the effects of scalpel versus cutting diathermy skin incisions in cesarean sections for women on low molecular weight heparin.
  • Randomized controlled trial design
  • 160 pregnant women on low molecular weight heparin were enrolled
  • Participants randomized into scalpel and diathermy groups
  • Primary outcomes included incision time and intraoperative blood loss
  • Secondary outcomes measured were postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, and wound complications
  • Diathermy group had significantly shorter incision time (39.7±11.2 s) compared to scalpel group (89.6±26.1 s; P<0.001)
  • Intraoperative blood loss was lower in the diathermy group (11.8±3.4 mL) versus scalpel group (17.5±4.8 mL; P<0.001)
  • No significant differences were noted in postoperative pain, analgesia needs, or wound complications between groups

Abstract

Background secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, analgesia use, and wound complications (seroma, hematoma, infection).Results: The diathermy group had significantly shorter incision time (39.7±11.2 s) compared with the scalpel group (89.6±26.1 s; P<0.001) and less blood loss (11.8±3.4 mL vs 17.5±4.8 mL; P<0.001). No significant differences were found between the two groups in postoperative pain, analgesia needs, or wound complications.Conclusion: Cutting diathermy provides faster incision and reduced intraoperative bleeding without increasing postoperative pain or wound complications in LMWH-treated women undergoing cesarean section, supporting its safety and efficiency in this high-risk group.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sediek et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69cb6541e6a8c024954b9680https://doi.org/10.24200/jogcr.11.4.329
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Study of Outcome of Diathermic Incision Cautery more than 5 cms in General and Urologic Surgery Operations2024 · 1 citations
  2. 2A Comparative Study of Cutting Electrocautery Versus Scalpel for Surgical Incisions2026
  3. 3Comparative Evaluation of Blood Loss During Caesarean Section: Electrosurgical Unit Versus Cold Scalpel—A Retrospective Study2026
  4. 4Outcomes of Craniotomy Scalp Incision Using Cutting Micro-Needle Diathermy versus Traditional Stainless-Steel Scalpel2025
  5. 5Minimally invasive spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in maternal anticoagulation therapy: a randomized controlled trial2019 · 7 citations