Effect of LigaSure™, Monopolar Cautery, and Bipolar Cautery on Surgical Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery.
Breast cancer
Breast-conserving surgery
Electrosurgery
Lumpectomy
Thermal destruction
Journal
Breast care (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1661-3791
Titre abrégé: Breast Care (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101254060
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
entrez:
28
9
2019
pubmed:
29
9
2019
medline:
29
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We compared the differences in thermal damage at the surgical margin between monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure™ in breast cancer lumpectomy specimens and assessed the effect of these techniques on the evaluation of the surgical margins. 30 patients scheduled for breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer were included in this study. During lumpectomy, each of the superior, inferior, lateral, and medial borders of the tumour was excised using one of the following: a scalpel, monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure technology. The surgical margins of frozen and paraffin-embedded tissue sections of the lumpectomy specimen were evaluated. Thermal damage was defined as the maximum depth of thermal damage (in mm) from the surgical margin, and the level was categorized as none, low (≤1 mm), or high (>1 mm). There was no statistically significant difference between monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure in terms of thermal damage. There was no thermal damage at the surgical margin in tissues dissected by scalpel. Thermal damage due to the excision method may cause false-negative and false-positive results in the surgical margin evaluation of lumpectomy specimens. More research is needed on the effects of different energy modalities on surgical margin evaluation in breast-conserving surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We compared the differences in thermal damage at the surgical margin between monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure™ in breast cancer lumpectomy specimens and assessed the effect of these techniques on the evaluation of the surgical margins.
METHODS
METHODS
30 patients scheduled for breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer were included in this study. During lumpectomy, each of the superior, inferior, lateral, and medial borders of the tumour was excised using one of the following: a scalpel, monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure technology. The surgical margins of frozen and paraffin-embedded tissue sections of the lumpectomy specimen were evaluated. Thermal damage was defined as the maximum depth of thermal damage (in mm) from the surgical margin, and the level was categorized as none, low (≤1 mm), or high (>1 mm).
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was no statistically significant difference between monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure in terms of thermal damage. There was no thermal damage at the surgical margin in tissues dissected by scalpel.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Thermal damage due to the excision method may cause false-negative and false-positive results in the surgical margin evaluation of lumpectomy specimens. More research is needed on the effects of different energy modalities on surgical margin evaluation in breast-conserving surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31558893
doi: 10.1159/000493985
pii: brc-0014-0194
pmc: PMC6751457
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
194-199Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors received no financial support pertaining to this work.
Références
J Orthop Res. 1999 Nov;17(6):891-9
pubmed: 10632456
Surg Endosc. 2001 Aug;15(8):799-801
pubmed: 11443443
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002 Feb;12(1):61-3
pubmed: 11905864
J Urol. 2003 Feb;169(2):697-700
pubmed: 12544345
Surg Endosc. 2003 Aug;17(8):1228-30
pubmed: 12799888
Semin Laparosc Surg. 2004 Sep;11(3):201-9
pubmed: 15510316
Can J Surg. 2005 Jun;48(3):185-94
pubmed: 16013621
Surg Today. 2006;36(10):908-13
pubmed: 16998685
J Endourol. 2008 Oct;22(10):2307-12
pubmed: 18831673
J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Nov;209(5):608-13
pubmed: 19854401
J Surg Oncol. 2011 Dec;104(7):746-54
pubmed: 21744349
Pol Przegl Chir. 2011 Jul;83(7):355-60
pubmed: 22166662
Minerva Chir. 2012 Oct;67(5):445-52
pubmed: 23232484
BJU Int. 2014 Aug;114(2):245-52
pubmed: 24127773
Oral Oncol. 2014 Jan;50(1):32-9
pubmed: 24269533
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Mar 1;88(3):553-64
pubmed: 24521674
Breast Care (Basel). 2012 Oct;7(5):370-6
pubmed: 24647775
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1998 Dec;8(6):381-94
pubmed: 9916591