Clinical Audit of Radiofrequency Electrocautery Procedure at Dermatology Department of a Tertiary Care Teaching Center

• Published in: Clinical Dermatology Review Vol. 7; no. 4; pp. 363 - 366
• Main Authors: Patel, Dhruv, Tandel, Jinal, Shah, Juhi, Polra, Rutoo, Nair, Pragya
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd 01.10.2023; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Subjects: audit; Care and treatment; electric cautery; Electrocoagulation; electrode; Evidence-based medicine; Methods; Quality management; radiofrequency; Radiofrequency ablation; Skin; Skin diseases; India
• ISSN: 2542-551X; 2542-5528
• DOI: 10.4103/cdr.cdr_56_22

Abstract Background: Radiofrequency (RF) surgery is an office-based procedure in the treatment of various skin conditions. It has the advantage of having both cut and coagulation modes, making the surgery easy, fast, effective, and cheaper, and causes minimal collateral thermal damage, resulting in rapid healing and esthetically pleasant scars. Objective: The present study was a clinical audit done with the aim to improve the quality of practice for RF electrocautery in the outpatient department (OPD) setup. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective clinical audit of patients coming to skin OPD requiring electrocauterization from August 2019 to October 2019. To assess and monitor the patients going for electrocautery, a pro forma was filled about the indication of electrocautery. Requirements and guidelines followed or not during pre- and postoperative preparation were also tabulated. During the procedure, details such as type of electrode, mode and power of electrocautery, wiping of electrode between each use, continuous activation of foot switch, and waiting period between two passages were also noted. Ratios, proportions, and percentages were used to describe the data. Results: A total of 30 patients were enrolled of which 24 were male (80%) and 6 were female (20%). The most common indication was skin tags seen in 21 participants (70%), followed by warts in 6 (20%) and seborrheic keratosis in 3 (10%) patients. Proper counseling and explanation were done in all the patients (100%). Each cautery was performed with clean surroundings (100%). During the procedure, 24 patients (80%) were given injectable local anesthetics. The electrode used was a long sharp tip electrode in all the procedures and the most common power of instrument used was 0.5 (70%). After each use, wiping of electrode was done in 24 (80%) patients. Three patients were on aspirin (10%) and one had a keloidal tendency (3.33%) which was missed while taking history. Conclusion: Educational interventions among doctors as well as students should be carried out to sensitize them about the standard guidelines of using electrocautery for better results.