Comparison of Colorado Needle Electrocautery and Traditional Scalpel for Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty Incision: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Systematic Review

Abstract

Background:Upper eyelid blepharoplasty is a popular aesthetic surgery. Electrocautery provides a hemostatic benefit for skin incision; however, its effect on scar cosmesis remains unclear, especially in Asian skin types. We aimed to compare the Colorado needle electrocautery pure cutting mode and the traditional scalpel to determine their efficacy, complications, and cosmetic outcomes.Methods:A systematic review was performed to review the outcome with the conventional method (scalpel) and other methods in upper blepharoplasty procedures. Further, a prospective intraindividual randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of Colorado needle electrocautery and the scalpel in upper blepharoplasty. Study outcomes included scar quality at different times until 1-year postoperation, bleeding during incision, and postoperative ecchymosis.Results:Five articles met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The prospective randomized controlled trial study included 30 patients; the average incisional time on the electrocautery side was significantly longer than that on the scalpel side, and the electrocautery side had less blood loss during incision than the scalpel side (2.4 versus 3.27 using average cotton bud sticks, respectively) (P< 0.001). Hypopigmented scarring occurred more frequently on the scalpel side; however, the difference was not statistically significant.Conclusions:Colorado needle electrocautery pure cutting mode can be an alternative to traditional scalpel for upper eyelid blepharoplasty skin incision because of long-term scar quality. Electrocautery use has hemostatic benefits, leading to a decrease in bleeding that can obscure the incision site. However, the incision time on the electrocautery side was significantly longer than the scalpel side, which may be owing to an adaptation of surgical technique.