Journal of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회지)

The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회)
권호 표지

Comparative Study of Wound Healing in Porcine Uterus with $CO_2$ Laser and Scalpel Incisions

$CO_2$ Laser와 Scalpel을 이용한 절개 시 돼지 자궁에서의 창상 치유 평가

  • Lee, Jae-Yeon (College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Park, Chang-Sik (Division of Animal Science & Resources, Research Center for Transgenic Cloned Pigs, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Cho, Sung-Whan (College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Jeong, Seong-Mok (College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Kim, Myung-Cheol (College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungnam National University)
  • 이재연 (충남대학교 수의과대학) ;
  • 박창식 (충남대학교 동물자원학부, 형질전환복제돼지연구센터) ;
  • 조성환 (충남대학교 수의과대학) ;
  • 정성목 (충남대학교 수의과대학) ;
  • 김명철 (충남대학교 수의과대학)
  • Published : 2009.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study compared the instrument performance and tissue healing of a steel scalpel with a $CO_2$ laser in an animal uterine surgery model. Five Landrace and Yorkshire mixed breed pigs were used. Two symmetrical incisions were made in the uterine of each pig. One incision was made on the left side of the uterine horn using a steel scalpel, while the other incision was performed on the right side using a $CO_2$ laser with an 8W output power. Each instrument was evaluated clinically for speed, ease of incision, and extent of bleeding. An ovariohysterectomy was performed at 21 days after the surgical procedure for a histological examination. The scalpel was an easier instrument to use in the confines of the uterine tissue, compared with the laser. However, there is no significant difference between the two groups. The amount of bleeding was less in the laser group but the time of the incisions was shorter with the scalpel. Postoperative uterus adhesion in the $CO_2$ laser incisions was lower than the scalpel incisions. Scalpel incisions showed complete restoration of the epithelium and endometrial gland. On the other hand, the laser incisions showed incomplete restoration of the epithelium and endometrial gland. Although the scalpel produced less damage to the uterine tissue and was easier to handle than the $CO_2$ laser, it did not provide hemostasis that was helpful for use on highly vascular tissue. The $CO_2$ laser provided good hemostasis but delayed wound healing.

Steel scalpel과 $CO_2$ laser를 이용한 돼지 자궁 절개 시 창상 치유에 미치는 영향을 평가하고자 본 실험을 실시하였다. 다섯 마리의 Landrace - Yorkshire 혼혈 종 돼지를 이용하였고, 각각의 돼지에서 좌측 및 우측의 자궁에 대칭적으로 scalpel과 $CO_2$ laser를 이용하여 절개 하였다. 각각의 기구는 절개 속도, 절개의 용이성 및 출혈 정도를 평가 하였으며 수술 후 21일에 육안적인 유착 정도와 조직학적 검사를 실시하였다. Scalpel을 이용한 절개는 레이저를 이용한 절개보다 용이하였으나 두 군간의 유의성은 없었다. 레이저를 이용한 절개 시 출혈량은 적었으나 절개속도는 scalpel을 이용한 경우가 빨랐다. $CO_2$ laser 절개에서의 수술 후 자궁 유착은 scalpel 절개에서 보다 적게 발생하였다. 조직학적 검사에서 scalpel 절개의 경우 상피 조직과 자궁내막선의 재생이 완전히 이루어 졌으나 레이저를 이용한 경우 불완전한 재생 상태를 보였다. 비록 scalpel을 이용한 절개가 $CO_2$ laser를 이용한 경우 보다 조직 손상이 적었으며 사용하기 용이하였으나 출혈이 많은 단점이 있다. 반면 $CO_2$ laser를 이용한 절개의 경우 지혈 효과는 좋으나 창상 치유를 지연 시켰다.

Keywords

References

  1. Alamillos-Granados FJ, Naval-Gías L, Dean-Ferrer A, Alonso del Hoyo JR. Carbon dioxide laser vermilionectomy for actinic cheilitis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993; 51:118-121 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(10)80004-7
  2. Clayman, L. and Kuo, P. Laser in maxillofacical surgery and dentistry. New York: George Thieme Verlag. 1997: 123-158
  3. Fisher SE, Frame JW, Browne RM, Tranter RM. A comparative histological study of wound healing following CO2 laser and conventional surgical excision of canine buccal mucosa. Arch Oral Biol. 1983; 28: 287-291 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(83)90069-9
  4. Hall RR. The healing of tissues incised by a carbon-dioxide laser. Br J Surg 1971; 58 :222-225 https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800580316
  5. Hambley R, Hebda PA, Abell E, Cohen BA, Jegasothy BV. Wound healing of skin incisions produced by ultrasonically vibrating knife, scalpel, electrosurgery, and carbon dioxide laser. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1988; 14: 1213-1217
  6. Jako GJ. Laser surgery of the vocal cords. An experimental study with carbon dioxide lasers on dogs. Laryngoscope 1972; 82 :2204-2216 https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-197212000-00009
  7. Mihashi S, Jako GJ, Incze J, Strong MS, Vaughan CW. Laser surgery in otolaryngology: interaction of CO2 laser and soft tissue. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1976; 267: 263-294 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb41614.x
  8. Molgat YM, Pollack SV, Hurwitz JJ, Bunas SJ, Manning T, McCormack KM, Pinnell SR. Comparative study of wound healing in porcine skin with CO2 laser and other surgical modalities: preliminary findings. Int J Dermatol 1995; 34: 42-47 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-4362.1995.tb04379.x
  9. Sinha UK, Gallagher LA. Effect of steel scalpel, ultrasonic scalpel, CO2 laser, and monopolar and bipolar electrosurgery on wound healing in guinea pig oral mucosa. Laryngoscope 2003; 113: 228-236 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200302000-00007
  10. Speyer M, Joe J, Davidson JM, Ossoff RH, Reinisch L. Thermal injury patterns and tensile strength of canine oral mucosa after carbon dioxide laser incisions. Laryngoscope 1996; 106: 845-850 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199607000-00012
  11. Tuffin JR, Carruth JA. The carbon dioxide surgical laser. Br Dent J 1980; 149: 255-258 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4804505