Advanced hemostasis in axillary lymph node dissection for locally advanced breast cancer: new technology devices compared in the prevention of seroma formation.
Adult
Aged
Axilla
/ pathology
Blood Loss, Surgical
/ prevention & control
Breast Neoplasms
/ surgery
Drainage
/ adverse effects
Electrocoagulation
/ adverse effects
Female
Hemostasis, Surgical
/ methods
Humans
Lymph Node Excision
/ methods
Mastectomy
/ methods
Mastectomy, Segmental
/ methods
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Seroma
/ etiology
Advanced breast cancer
Advanced hemostasis device
Axillary lymphnodes dissection
Seroma
Journal
BMC surgery
ISSN: 1471-2482
Titre abrégé: BMC Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968567
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Apr 2019
24 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
18
09
2018
accepted:
05
12
2018
entrez:
11
5
2019
pubmed:
11
5
2019
medline:
3
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Breast cancer is the most frequent neoplasm in women. Axillary lymph nodes dissection represents the treatment of choice in locally advanced breast cancer for prognostic and curative purposes. Seroma formation, an abnormal collection of fluid in the dead space of the axilla, is described in Literature with a wide range of incidence (3-85%). It is a source of significant morbidity and discomfort. The aim of the study is to compare the different haemostasis devices used in breast surgery, investigating the eventual superiority of an instrument among the others in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcome, especially of seroma formation. Clinical cases of female patients undergone axillary lymph nodes dissection for local advanced breast cancer between January 2013 and July 2017 at the Surgery Unit of University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into four groups, according to device utilized during surgery: Electrocautery, Harmonic Scalpel, LigaSure and Thunderbeat. All patients underwent II level axillary lymph nodes dissection associated to radical mastectomy or quadrantectomy. One hundred consecutives patients were enrolled in the study. Intra-operative blood loss resulted statistically significant different (P < 0,01) between the Electrocautery group (94,7 ml) and the Thunderbeat group (57,2 ml), while the Harmonic Scalpel group and the Ligasure group, despite presented a lower amount of blood loss, did not differ significantly. Drainage volume resulted significantly lower (P = 0,002) in the comparison between the Electrocautery group and the Thunderbeat group; the Ligasure group and Harmonic Scapel group showed no difference between them and Electrocautery group. About the seroma formation, the Electrocautery group resulted affected by the highest seroma formation rate (64%). Seroma incidence in Harmonic Scalpel group was 24%, in Ligasure group was 44%, while Thunderbeat group showed the lowest presentation of seroma with 16%. In patients affected by breast cancer requiring axillary lymphnodes dissection, the use of advanced hemostasis devices is highly desirable. Among the non-traditional tools, Thunderbeat resulted to be superior in terms of reduction of intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drainage output, moreover associated to a substantial reduction of postoperative seroma incidence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer is the most frequent neoplasm in women. Axillary lymph nodes dissection represents the treatment of choice in locally advanced breast cancer for prognostic and curative purposes. Seroma formation, an abnormal collection of fluid in the dead space of the axilla, is described in Literature with a wide range of incidence (3-85%). It is a source of significant morbidity and discomfort. The aim of the study is to compare the different haemostasis devices used in breast surgery, investigating the eventual superiority of an instrument among the others in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcome, especially of seroma formation.
METHODS
METHODS
Clinical cases of female patients undergone axillary lymph nodes dissection for local advanced breast cancer between January 2013 and July 2017 at the Surgery Unit of University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into four groups, according to device utilized during surgery: Electrocautery, Harmonic Scalpel, LigaSure and Thunderbeat. All patients underwent II level axillary lymph nodes dissection associated to radical mastectomy or quadrantectomy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
One hundred consecutives patients were enrolled in the study. Intra-operative blood loss resulted statistically significant different (P < 0,01) between the Electrocautery group (94,7 ml) and the Thunderbeat group (57,2 ml), while the Harmonic Scalpel group and the Ligasure group, despite presented a lower amount of blood loss, did not differ significantly. Drainage volume resulted significantly lower (P = 0,002) in the comparison between the Electrocautery group and the Thunderbeat group; the Ligasure group and Harmonic Scapel group showed no difference between them and Electrocautery group. About the seroma formation, the Electrocautery group resulted affected by the highest seroma formation rate (64%). Seroma incidence in Harmonic Scalpel group was 24%, in Ligasure group was 44%, while Thunderbeat group showed the lowest presentation of seroma with 16%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In patients affected by breast cancer requiring axillary lymphnodes dissection, the use of advanced hemostasis devices is highly desirable. Among the non-traditional tools, Thunderbeat resulted to be superior in terms of reduction of intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drainage output, moreover associated to a substantial reduction of postoperative seroma incidence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31074399
doi: 10.1186/s12893-018-0454-8
pii: 10.1186/s12893-018-0454-8
pmc: PMC7402581
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
125Références
Breast J. 2003 Sep-Oct;9(5):385-8
pubmed: 12968958
ANZ J Surg. 2006 Dec;76(12):1088-95
pubmed: 17199696
Am J Surg. 1998 Jul;176(1):8-11
pubmed: 9683123
Springerplus. 2016 Jul 07;5(1):1004
pubmed: 27398279
Mol Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan;3(1):222-226
pubmed: 25469299
J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Oct 06;34:113
pubmed: 26445493
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2014 May;7(2):95-101
pubmed: 24754878
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Jun;68(6):e126-8
pubmed: 25682592
Cancer. 2001 Oct 1;92(7):1783-7
pubmed: 11745250
Cancer. 2001 Sep 15;92(6):1368-77
pubmed: 11745212
Surg Endosc. 2001 Aug;15(8):799-801
pubmed: 11443443
Br J Surg. 1985 Jul;72(7):542-4
pubmed: 4016536
Ecancermedicalscience. 2007;1:61
pubmed: 22275958
Epidemiol Prev. 2017 Mar-Apr;41(2 Suppl 1):1-244
pubmed: 28629213
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2006 Jun;35(4):341-7
pubmed: 16940903
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 04;6(4):e009903
pubmed: 27044574
Oncol Rep. 2003 Nov-Dec;10(6):1729-32
pubmed: 14534686
J Breast Cancer. 2012 Dec;15(4):373-80
pubmed: 23346164
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018 Nov;298(5):951-959
pubmed: 30196358
Lancet. 1997 Jun 28;349(9069):1864-7
pubmed: 9217757
Indian J Surg Oncol. 2010 Dec;1(4):328-33
pubmed: 22693384
Arch Surg. 2008 Jun;143(6):575-80; discussion 581
pubmed: 18559751
J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Jan;208(1):148-50
pubmed: 19228516
Br J Surg. 1994 Jun;81(6):856-9
pubmed: 8044602
Am J Surg. 2010 Sep;200(3):352-6
pubmed: 20409509
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012 Oct;38(10):897-901
pubmed: 22704049
Indian J Surg Oncol. 2011 Sep;2(3):156-8
pubmed: 22942604
G Chir. 2016 Nov-Dec;37(6):262-265
pubmed: 28350973
Dan Med Bull. 1989 Oct;36(5):487-9
pubmed: 2509147
Am J Surg. 2008 Aug;196(2):170-4
pubmed: 18639659
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 Oct;37(10):829-35
pubmed: 21849243
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016 Sep;401(6):851-9
pubmed: 27222244
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Jan;167(2):409-416
pubmed: 29039118
World J Surg Oncol. 2017 Jul 14;15(1):129
pubmed: 28709454
In Vivo. 2018 May-Jun;32(3):625-631
pubmed: 29695569
World J Surg Oncol. 2004 Dec 09;2:44
pubmed: 15588301
Int J Surg. 2016 Jun;30:116-20
pubmed: 27142863
N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 23;363(13):1203-10
pubmed: 20860502
Anticancer Res. 2016 Feb;36(2):779-83
pubmed: 26851039
Indian J Surg. 2017 Oct;79(5):423-426
pubmed: 29089702
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016 Aug;140(8):791-8
pubmed: 27472237
Anticancer Res. 2016 May;36(5):2423-7
pubmed: 27127152
Am J Surg. 2012 Jun;203(6):708-14
pubmed: 22153087
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Nov;142(2):399-404
pubmed: 24186056
J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1995 Oct;40(5):292-4
pubmed: 8523301
Cureus. 2018 Apr 13;10(4):e2476
pubmed: 29904617
Breast. 2012 Dec;21(6):739-45
pubmed: 22959311
Arch Surg. 1990 Mar;125(3):378-82
pubmed: 2407228
BMC Cancer. 2005 Jan 27;5:11
pubmed: 15676064
J Chin Med Assoc. 2012 Oct;75(10):519-23
pubmed: 23089404
Am Surg. 2000 May;66(5):444-50; discussion 450-1
pubmed: 10824744
Am J Surg. 1999 Jun;177(6):450-3
pubmed: 10414691
G Chir. 2010 Apr;31(4):151-3
pubmed: 20444331
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Feb 10;35(5):561-564
pubmed: 27937089
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015 Dec;25(12):870-3
pubmed: 26691360
G Chir. 2009 Jun-Jul;30(6-7):306-10
pubmed: 19580713
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2017 Aug;26(4):249-252
pubmed: 28145160
Chirurgia (Bucur). 2014 Sep-Oct;109(5):620-5
pubmed: 25375047
Breast J. 2000 Jan;6(1):31-33
pubmed: 11348332
Indian J Surg Oncol. 2014 Jun;5(2):95-8
pubmed: 25114459
Int J Clin Pract. 2006 May;60(5):562-4
pubmed: 16700855
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003 Nov;29(9):711-7
pubmed: 14602488
BMC Surg. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S8
pubmed: 24266959
J Med Assoc Thai. 2003 Apr;86(4):325-31
pubmed: 12757076
In Vivo. 2009 Nov-Dec;23(6):1017-20
pubmed: 20023249