The Experts below are selected from a list of 300 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
John A. Windsor - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
systematic review and meta analysis of cutting Diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision
British Journal of Surgery, 2012Co-Authors: Anubhav Mittal, John A. WindsorAbstract:Background: Skin incisions have traditionally been made using a scalpel. Cutting Diathermy, a more recent alternative, is thought to increase the risk of infection, impair healing and decrease cosmesis. Recent studies suggest otherwise, claiming that Diathermy may offer potential advantages with respect to blood loss, incision time and postoperative pain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare skin incisions made by either scalpel or cutting Diathermy. Methods: A systematic literature search and review was performed for studies published from January 1980 until June 2011. Randomized clinical trials comparing scalpel and cutting Diathermy for skin incisions of any operation were included. Primary outcomes included wound complication rate, blood loss, incision times and pain scores. Results: Fourteen randomized trials met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, providing outcome data for a total of 2541 patients (1267 undergoing skin incision by cutting Diathermy and 1274 by scalpel). The median length of follow-up across all studies was 6 weeks (range 4 days to 19 months). Compared with a scalpel incision, cutting Diathermy resulted in significantly less blood loss (mean difference 0·72 ml/cm2; P < 0·001) and shorter incision times (mean difference 36 s; P < 0·001), with no differences in the wound complication rate (odds ratio 0·87; P = 0·29) or pain score at 24 h (mean difference 0·89; P = 0·05). Conclusion: Skin incisions made by cutting Diathermy are quicker and associated with less blood loss than those made by scalpel, and there are no differences in the rate of wound complications or postoperative pain. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Systematic review and meta‐analysis of cutting Diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision
The British journal of surgery, 2012Co-Authors: Anubhav Mittal, John A. WindsorAbstract:Background: Skin incisions have traditionally been made using a scalpel. Cutting Diathermy, a more recent alternative, is thought to increase the risk of infection, impair healing and decrease cosmesis. Recent studies suggest otherwise, claiming that Diathermy may offer potential advantages with respect to blood loss, incision time and postoperative pain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare skin incisions made by either scalpel or cutting Diathermy. Methods: A systematic literature search and review was performed for studies published from January 1980 until June 2011. Randomized clinical trials comparing scalpel and cutting Diathermy for skin incisions of any operation were included. Primary outcomes included wound complication rate, blood loss, incision times and pain scores. Results: Fourteen randomized trials met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, providing outcome data for a total of 2541 patients (1267 undergoing skin incision by cutting Diathermy and 1274 by scalpel). The median length of follow-up across all studies was 6 weeks (range 4 days to 19 months). Compared with a scalpel incision, cutting Diathermy resulted in significantly less blood loss (mean difference 0·72 ml/cm2; P < 0·001) and shorter incision times (mean difference 36 s; P < 0·001), with no differences in the wound complication rate (odds ratio 0·87; P = 0·29) or pain score at 24 h (mean difference 0·89; P = 0·05). Conclusion: Skin incisions made by cutting Diathermy are quicker and associated with less blood loss than those made by scalpel, and there are no differences in the rate of wound complications or postoperative pain. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Carl J Brown - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
randomized double blind trial comparing the cosmetic outcome of cutting Diathermy versus scalpel for skin incisions
British Journal of Surgery, 2015Co-Authors: Lisa N F Aird, S G Bristol, P T Phang, Manoj J Raval, Carl J BrownAbstract: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).
David O Draper - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of shortwave Diathermy and microwave Diathermy
International Journal of Athletic Therapy and training, 2013Co-Authors: David O DraperAbstract:ny therapeutic modalities textbook includes information about a myriad of therapeutic modalities used for the treatment and rehabilitation of injuries. Two frequently used modalities are ice and ultrasound; probably the modality used least often is Diathermy. The purpose of this report is to contrast shortwave Diathermy (SWD) and microwave Diathermy (MWD), and to present two cases that involved administration of pulsed shortwave Diathermy (PSWD) over surgically implanted metal. The word Diathermy means “through heat” (dia
-
shortwave Diathermy and prolonged stretching increase hamstring flexibility more than prolonged stretching alone
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 2004Co-Authors: David O Draper, Jennifer L Castro, Brent Feland, Shane S Schulthies, Dennis L EggettAbstract:Study Design A randomized, counterbalanced 2×3×5 repeated-measures design. Objective To compare changes in hamstring flexibility after treatments of pulsed shortwave Diathermy and prolonged stretch, sham Diathermy and prolonged stretch, and control. Background Heat and stretch techniques have been touted for years. To date, the effect of shortwave Diathermy and hamstring stretching has not been studied. Because Diathermy heats a large area and penetrates deep into the muscle, use of this device prior to or during hamstring stretching may increase flexibility. Methods and Measures Thirty college-age students (mean age, 21.5 years) with tight hamstrings (inability to achieve greater than 160° knee extension at 90° hip flexion) participated. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: Diathermy and stretch, sham Diathermy and stretch, and control). Range of motion was recorded before and after each treatment for 5 days and on day 8. A straight leg-raise stretch was performed using a mechanical apparatus. Subjec...
-
pulsed shortwave Diathermy and prolonged long duration stretching increase dorsiflexion range of motion more than identical stretching without Diathermy
Journal of Athletic Training, 2002Co-Authors: S E Peres, David O Draper, Kenneth L. KnightAbstract:: OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of 3 treatments on ankle dorsiflexion range of motion: prolonged long-duration stretching, pulsed shortwave Diathermy followed by stretching, and pulsed shortwave Diathermy, stretching, and ice combined. DESIGN AND SETTING: A 2 x 5 x 15 repeated-measures (on 2 factors) design guided this study. Range-of-motion change in triceps surae flexibility was the dependent variable. The 3 independent variables were treatment group, pretest and posttest measurements, and day. Treatment group had 4 levels: control, stretching (10 minutes of stretching via the weight and pulley), Diathermy and stretching (20 minutes of Diathermy and 10 minutes of stretching), and Diathermy, stretching, and ice (20 minutes of Diathermy, 10 minutes of stretching applied after 15 minutes of Diathermy, and 5 minutes of ice applied during the last 5 minutes of stretching). Each subject received 14 treatments throughout 3 weeks, with a follow-up measurement taken 6 days after the last treatment. SUBJECTS: Forty-four healthy college-student volunteers not involved in any flexibility program. MEASUREMENTS: We measured ankle dorsiflexion using a digital inclinometer before and after treatment. RESULTS: After 14 days of treatment, the range-of-motion increase was greater after heat and stretching than after stretching alone. After 6 additional days of rest, the heat and stretching range-of-motion increase was greater than that for stretching alone. CONCLUSION: Pulsed shortwave Diathermy application before prolonged long-duration static stretching was more effective than stretching alone in increasing flexibility throughout 3 weeks. After 14 treatments, prolonged long-duration stretching combined with pulsed shortwave Diathermy followed by ice application caused greater immediate and net range-of-motion increases than prolonged long-duration stretching alone.
-
The Carry-Over Effects of Diathermy and Stretching in Developing Hamstring Flexibility.
Journal of athletic training, 2002Co-Authors: David O Draper, Lisa Miner, Kenneth L. Knight, Mark D. RicardAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of low-load, short-duration stretching with or without high-intensity, pulsed short-wave Diathermy on hamstring flexibility. DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a single-blind, repeated-measures design (pretest and posttest for all treatments) that included a placebo. The 3 independent variables were treatment mode, pretest and posttest measurements, and day. Treatment mode had 3 levels: Diathermy and stretching, stretching alone, and control. The dependent variable was range of motion. Subjects were randomly assigned to the Diathermy and stretching, stretching-only, or control group. Subjects were treated and tested each day (at approximately the same time) for 5 days, with a follow-up test administered 72 hours later. Hamstring flexibility was tested using a sit-and-reach box before and after each treatment. Diathermy and stretching subjects received a 15-minute Diathermy treatment on the right hamstring at a setting of 7000 pulses per second, with an average pulse width of 95 μsec. Stretching-only subjects received a 15-minute sham Diathermy treatment. Both Diathermy and stretching and stretching-only subjects then performed three 30-second stretches (short duration) before being retested. Control subjects lay prone for 15 minutes before being retested. SUBJECTS: Thirty-seven healthy college students (11 men, 26 women, age = 20.46 +/- 1.74 years) volunteered. MEASUREMENTS: Hamstring flexibility was measured using a sit-and-reach box before and after each treatment. RESULTS: The average increases in hamstring flexibility over the 5 treatment days for the Diathermy and stretching, stretching-only, and control groups were 6.06 cm (19.6%), 5.27 cm (19.7%), and 3.38 cm (10.4%), respectively. Three days later (after no treatment), the values for the Diathermy and stretching, stretching-only, and control groups were 8.27 cm (26.7%), 6.83 cm (25.3%), and 4.15 cm (14.2%), respectively. No significant differences in hamstring flexibility were noted among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Diathermy and short-duration stretching were no more effective than short-duration stretching alone at increasing hamstring flexibility. The effects of Diathermy with longer stretching times need to be researched.
Anubhav Mittal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
systematic review and meta analysis of cutting Diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision
British Journal of Surgery, 2012Co-Authors: Anubhav Mittal, John A. WindsorAbstract:Background: Skin incisions have traditionally been made using a scalpel. Cutting Diathermy, a more recent alternative, is thought to increase the risk of infection, impair healing and decrease cosmesis. Recent studies suggest otherwise, claiming that Diathermy may offer potential advantages with respect to blood loss, incision time and postoperative pain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare skin incisions made by either scalpel or cutting Diathermy. Methods: A systematic literature search and review was performed for studies published from January 1980 until June 2011. Randomized clinical trials comparing scalpel and cutting Diathermy for skin incisions of any operation were included. Primary outcomes included wound complication rate, blood loss, incision times and pain scores. Results: Fourteen randomized trials met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, providing outcome data for a total of 2541 patients (1267 undergoing skin incision by cutting Diathermy and 1274 by scalpel). The median length of follow-up across all studies was 6 weeks (range 4 days to 19 months). Compared with a scalpel incision, cutting Diathermy resulted in significantly less blood loss (mean difference 0·72 ml/cm2; P < 0·001) and shorter incision times (mean difference 36 s; P < 0·001), with no differences in the wound complication rate (odds ratio 0·87; P = 0·29) or pain score at 24 h (mean difference 0·89; P = 0·05). Conclusion: Skin incisions made by cutting Diathermy are quicker and associated with less blood loss than those made by scalpel, and there are no differences in the rate of wound complications or postoperative pain. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Systematic review and meta‐analysis of cutting Diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision
The British journal of surgery, 2012Co-Authors: Anubhav Mittal, John A. WindsorAbstract:Background: Skin incisions have traditionally been made using a scalpel. Cutting Diathermy, a more recent alternative, is thought to increase the risk of infection, impair healing and decrease cosmesis. Recent studies suggest otherwise, claiming that Diathermy may offer potential advantages with respect to blood loss, incision time and postoperative pain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare skin incisions made by either scalpel or cutting Diathermy. Methods: A systematic literature search and review was performed for studies published from January 1980 until June 2011. Randomized clinical trials comparing scalpel and cutting Diathermy for skin incisions of any operation were included. Primary outcomes included wound complication rate, blood loss, incision times and pain scores. Results: Fourteen randomized trials met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, providing outcome data for a total of 2541 patients (1267 undergoing skin incision by cutting Diathermy and 1274 by scalpel). The median length of follow-up across all studies was 6 weeks (range 4 days to 19 months). Compared with a scalpel incision, cutting Diathermy resulted in significantly less blood loss (mean difference 0·72 ml/cm2; P < 0·001) and shorter incision times (mean difference 36 s; P < 0·001), with no differences in the wound complication rate (odds ratio 0·87; P = 0·29) or pain score at 24 h (mean difference 0·89; P = 0·05). Conclusion: Skin incisions made by cutting Diathermy are quicker and associated with less blood loss than those made by scalpel, and there are no differences in the rate of wound complications or postoperative pain. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
S G Bristol - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
randomized double blind trial comparing the cosmetic outcome of cutting Diathermy versus scalpel for skin incisions
British Journal of Surgery, 2015Co-Authors: Lisa N F Aird, S G Bristol, P T Phang, Manoj J Raval, Carl J BrownAbstract: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).