Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Scar formation after neck surgery is a frequent concern, impacting patients both physically and psychologically. Cosmetic appearance plays a crucial role in assessing surgical success. At present, the evolving medical technologies introduces innovations like Geometric Electron Modulation (GEM) electrocautery. GEM technology offers potential benefits such as reduced thermal injury and consistent heat emission during surgery compared to conventional electrocautery.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference between postoperative neck scars from the surgical blade as the gold standard and geometric electron modulation electrocautery.
METHODS: A randomized controlled study was performed on the patients who were diagnosed with surgical conditions requiring neck surgery at the Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, from 2023 to 2024. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was utilized to assess scar appearance at 1 and 3 months following the surgery, and the amount of blood loss during incision was recorded.
RESULTS: 22 patients were enrolled to this study. At 1-month follow-up, we saw significant difference between GEM (20.32 ± 4.11) and the surgical blade (23.27 ± 4.59) (P = 0.008) from POSAS, patient scale but no significant difference in doctor scale, (GEM 21.55 ± 7.34, surgical blade 24.27 ± 7.88, P = 0.155). At 3-month follow-up, there were no significant difference between the groups both doctor (GEM 16.45 ± 4.62, surgical blade 17.65 ± 4.50, P = 0.411) and patient scale (GEM 13.15 ± 2.96, surgical blade 14.05 ± 3.33, P = 0.328).
CONCLUSIONS: GEM electrocautery had a superior scar outcome to a surgical blade at 1 month from the patient perspective. There was also significantly less blood loss in GEM compared with the surgical blade.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference between postoperative neck scars from the surgical blade as the gold standard and geometric electron modulation electrocautery.
METHODS: A randomized controlled study was performed on the patients who were diagnosed with surgical conditions requiring neck surgery at the Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, from 2023 to 2024. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was utilized to assess scar appearance at 1 and 3 months following the surgery, and the amount of blood loss during incision was recorded.
RESULTS: 22 patients were enrolled to this study. At 1-month follow-up, we saw significant difference between GEM (20.32 ± 4.11) and the surgical blade (23.27 ± 4.59) (P = 0.008) from POSAS, patient scale but no significant difference in doctor scale, (GEM 21.55 ± 7.34, surgical blade 24.27 ± 7.88, P = 0.155). At 3-month follow-up, there were no significant difference between the groups both doctor (GEM 16.45 ± 4.62, surgical blade 17.65 ± 4.50, P = 0.411) and patient scale (GEM 13.15 ± 2.96, surgical blade 14.05 ± 3.33, P = 0.328).
CONCLUSIONS: GEM electrocautery had a superior scar outcome to a surgical blade at 1 month from the patient perspective. There was also significantly less blood loss in GEM compared with the surgical blade.
摘要：
背景：颈部手术后的疤痕形成是一个常见的问题，影响患者的身体和心理。美容外观在评估手术成功中起着至关重要的作用。目前,不断发展的医疗技术引入了几何电子调制（GEM）电灼烧等创新。GEM技术提供了潜在的好处，例如与传统的电灼术相比，减少了手术期间的热损伤和一致的散热。
目的：比较手术刀片作为金标准的术后颈部疤痕与几何电子调制电灼的差异。
方法：对耳鼻咽喉头颈外科诊断为需要颈部手术的患者进行了一项随机对照研究，朱拉隆功国王纪念医院,从2023年到2024年。患者和观察者疤痕评估量表用于评估手术后1个月和3个月的疤痕外观。并记录切口过程中的失血量。
结果：22例患者纳入本研究。在1个月的随访中，我们看到GEM（20.32±4.11）和手术刀片（23.27±4.59）（P=0.008）与POSAS之间存在显着差异，患者量表，但医生量表无显著差异，(GEM21.55±7.34,手术刀片24.27±7.88,P=0.155)。在3个月的随访中，两组医生（GEM16.45±4.62，手术刀片17.65±4.50，P=0.411）和患者量表（GEM13.15±2.96，手术刀片14.05±3.33，P=0.328）之间差异无统计学意义。
结论：从患者的角度来看，GEM电灼术在1个月时的瘢痕效果优于手术刀片。与手术刀片相比，GEM中的失血量也明显减少。
目的：比较手术刀片作为金标准的术后颈部疤痕与几何电子调制电灼的差异。
方法：对耳鼻咽喉头颈外科诊断为需要颈部手术的患者进行了一项随机对照研究，朱拉隆功国王纪念医院,从2023年到2024年。患者和观察者疤痕评估量表用于评估手术后1个月和3个月的疤痕外观。并记录切口过程中的失血量。
结果：22例患者纳入本研究。在1个月的随访中，我们看到GEM（20.32±4.11）和手术刀片（23.27±4.59）（P=0.008）与POSAS之间存在显着差异，患者量表，但医生量表无显著差异，(GEM21.55±7.34,手术刀片24.27±7.88,P=0.155)。在3个月的随访中，两组医生（GEM16.45±4.62，手术刀片17.65±4.50，P=0.411）和患者量表（GEM13.15±2.96，手术刀片14.05±3.33，P=0.328）之间差异无统计学意义。
结论：从患者的角度来看，GEM电灼术在1个月时的瘢痕效果优于手术刀片。与手术刀片相比，GEM中的失血量也明显减少。
