Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jul;128(1):104-11. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31821741ed.

Comparative healing of human cutaneous surgical incisions created by the PEAK PlasmaBlade, conventional electrosurgery, and a standard scalpel.

Author information

  • 1Department of Bioengineering, Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Calif, USA

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The authors investigated thermal injury depth, inflammation, and scarring in human abdominal skin by comparing the histology of incisions made with a standard "cold" scalpel blade, conventional electrosurgery, and the PEAK PlasmaBlade, a novel, low-thermal-injury electrosurgical instrument.

METHODS:

Approximately 6 and 3 weeks before abdominoplasty, full-thickness incisions were created in the abdominal pannus skin of 20 women, using a scalpel (scalpel), the PlasmaBlade, and a conventional electrosurgical instrument. Fresh (0-week) incisions were made immediately before surgery. After abdominoplasty, harvested incisions were analyzed for scar width, thermal injury depth, burst strength, and inflammatory response.

RESULTS:

Acute thermal injury depth was reduced 74 percent in PlasmaBlade incisions compared with conventional electrosurgical instrument (p < 0.001). Significant differences in inflammatory response were observed at 3 weeks, with mean CD3 response (T-lymphocytes) 40 percent (p = 0.01) and 21 percent (p ≈ 0.12) higher for the conventional electrosurgical instrument and PlasmaBlade, respectively, compared with the scalpel. CD68 response (monocytes/macrophages) was 52 percent (p = 0.05) and 16 percent (p ≈ 0.35) greater for a conventional electrosurgical instrument and the PlasmaBlade, respectively. PlasmaBlade incisions demonstrated 65 percent (p < 0.001) and 42 percent (p < 0.001) stronger burst strength than a conventional electrosurgical instrument, with equivalence to the scalpel at the 3- and 6-week time points, respectively. Scar width was equivalent for the PlasmaBlade and the scalpel at both time points, and 25 percent (p = 0.01) and 12 percent (p = 0.15) less than for electrosurgery, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

PlasmaBlade incisions demonstrated reduced thermal injury depth, inflammatory response, and scar width in healing skin compared with electrosurgery. These results suggest that the PlasmaBlade may provide clinically meaningful advantages over conventional electrosurgery during human cutaneous wound healing.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Therapeutic, II.(Figure is included in full-text article.).

Comment in

PMID:
21701326
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk