Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Labelling of diathermy consoles when multiple systems are used: should this be part of the WHO checklist?
  1. Nadine Hachach-Haram,
  2. Samer Saour,
  3. Reza Alamouti,
  4. Joannis Constantinides,
  5. Pari-Naz Mohanna
  1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Guy's & St Thomas's Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Nadine Hachach-Haram, Flat E, 15 Lancaster Gate, London W2 3LH, UK; nadine.haram{at}gmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The use of electrosurgical equipment is now common practice, enabling the surgeon to employ high-frequency alternating current to cauterise, cut or dissect through tissue planes. Electrosurgery was first introduced into medical practice in the 1920s and in the subsequent decades has revolutionised surgical care.1 Nonetheless its use is not free from risks, which include damage to local tissue (ie, neurovascular structures) and arcing with metal instruments or implants causing burns. Extreme care is therefore paramount when handling such equipment in the perioperative setting.

Modern day surgery has evolved, allowing parallel multiple site surgery to be routinely undertaken with the use of multiple electrosurgical consoles and their corresponding foot pedals, bipolar/monopolar forceps and finger switches. Often …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors NH-H suggested and designed this initiative, educated staff and drafted the paper; SS implemented their use in theatre and did the literature review; RA monitored the use of the new system across different theatres; JC educated nursing and surgical staff and reviewed the paper; P-NM led the project, drafted the paper and made the necessary revisions.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.