ArticleCureus2026
A Comparative Study of Cutting Electrocautery Versus Scalpel for Surgical Incisions.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe usage of scalpels for surgery started well before the Industrial Revolution, starting from crude instruments to precise and long-lasting instruments. The conventional teaching advocates the usage of scalpels over electrocautery in most teaching hospitals. This was based on a semantic school of thought that existed at that time, which was wary of burn injury to skin, hampered healing, or increased postoperative pain, rather than clinically driven conclusions. Usage of both these instruments is being studied extensively for placement of incisions. Materials and methods: This study was done in a prospective comparative observational manner among patients on whom an incision was placed with either a scalpel or cutting electrocautery. Patients undergoing surgery in our institution aged 18 to 65 years without any external factors hampering wound healing were included in this study. Patients outside the age group have been excluded. Surgical incisions were placed using a scalpel and cautery and data were recorded. Data were collected using a semi-open questionnaire and interviews and analysis was done using Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA).
resultsOne hundred twenty-four patients were enrolled, with an average age of 43 years. Cautery was used on 60 patients and a scalpel on 64 patients. Blood loss was significantly higher in the scalpel group (p<0.01). Postoperative pain was measured by visual analogue scoring (VAS) system and it was found that the scalpel group had significantly higher VAS scores on postoperative days three, seven, and 30 (P<0.05). Speed of incision and postoperative wound complication were comparable in both groups. Outcomes of incisions were better with the use of cautery (p<0.05).
conclusionCutting electrocautery may serve as a viable alternative to the traditional scalpel. It is associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter operative times, and a postoperative course characterized by primary intention healing and a low complication profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.