Value of using ultrasonic shears in reducing seroma formation after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients.

IF 2.1 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Yousra Mohsen Elshoura, Ahmed Refaat, Basma Hussein Abdelaziz Hassan, Philobater Bahgat Adly Awad, Mohamed Wael Ahmed, Sherif Mokhtar, Emad Salah El Din Khalaf
{"title":"Value of using ultrasonic shears in reducing seroma formation after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients.","authors":"Yousra Mohsen Elshoura, Ahmed Refaat, Basma Hussein Abdelaziz Hassan, Philobater Bahgat Adly Awad, Mohamed Wael Ahmed, Sherif Mokhtar, Emad Salah El Din Khalaf","doi":"10.1186/s43046-024-00248-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is an essential step in the management of breast cancer. ALND is conventionally performed using radio frequency electrosurgery. The post-operative complications of utilizing such energy (such as prolonged drainage time, seroma, or infection) lead to prolonged recovery. Hence, it may delay the initiation of adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy for this critical category of patients. Using ultrasound shears provides a wide spectrum of tissue effects via mechanical oscillation. The absence of an electric circuit in ultrasound shears reduces thermal injury and accordingly cellular damage.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Comparing utilization of ultrasound shears in axillary lymph node dissection to conventional radio frequency electrosurgery in terms of operative time, post-operative drainage amount and days, post-operative pain, the incidence of seroma or infection, and lymph node yield.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a randomized control trial. It includes 56 breast cancer ALND cases performed in conjunction with either BCS or MRM; being upfront surgery cases or post-neoadjuvant therapy cases, 28 patients underwent ALND using ultrasound shears and 28 underwent ALND using radio frequency electrosurgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of the study population was 51 ± 11.7 years, with a mean BMI of 39. The mean operative time in the ultrasound shear group was 29.4. ± 7.6 min and 31.6 ± 5.1 min in the conventional group. The mean amount of drainage in the ultrasound shear group was 319.6 ± 75.4 ml and 407.5 ± 75.2 ml in the conventional group. The mean drainage days in the ultrasound shear group were 8 ± 1 day and 12 ± 2.2 days in the conventional group. Seroma formation was recorded in 6 of the ultrasound shear groups and 9 in the conventional group. Seroma followed by infection was found in 10% of the ultrasound shear group versus 21% in the conventional group. Seroma formation and wound infection were significantly related to the conventional group (p-value = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study recommends the utilization of ultrasound shears in ALND as it is a safe and accurate method that allows faster post-operative recovery with shorter drainage time and lower incidence of seroma or infection, without affecting operative time or lymph node yield.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Trial no.: PACTR202402831197428. Date of approval: 19/02/2024.</p>","PeriodicalId":17301,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute","volume":"36 1","pages":"40"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43046-024-00248-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is an essential step in the management of breast cancer. ALND is conventionally performed using radio frequency electrosurgery. The post-operative complications of utilizing such energy (such as prolonged drainage time, seroma, or infection) lead to prolonged recovery. Hence, it may delay the initiation of adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy for this critical category of patients. Using ultrasound shears provides a wide spectrum of tissue effects via mechanical oscillation. The absence of an electric circuit in ultrasound shears reduces thermal injury and accordingly cellular damage.

Objective: Comparing utilization of ultrasound shears in axillary lymph node dissection to conventional radio frequency electrosurgery in terms of operative time, post-operative drainage amount and days, post-operative pain, the incidence of seroma or infection, and lymph node yield.

Methods: This study is a randomized control trial. It includes 56 breast cancer ALND cases performed in conjunction with either BCS or MRM; being upfront surgery cases or post-neoadjuvant therapy cases, 28 patients underwent ALND using ultrasound shears and 28 underwent ALND using radio frequency electrosurgery.

Results: The mean age of the study population was 51 ± 11.7 years, with a mean BMI of 39. The mean operative time in the ultrasound shear group was 29.4. ± 7.6 min and 31.6 ± 5.1 min in the conventional group. The mean amount of drainage in the ultrasound shear group was 319.6 ± 75.4 ml and 407.5 ± 75.2 ml in the conventional group. The mean drainage days in the ultrasound shear group were 8 ± 1 day and 12 ± 2.2 days in the conventional group. Seroma formation was recorded in 6 of the ultrasound shear groups and 9 in the conventional group. Seroma followed by infection was found in 10% of the ultrasound shear group versus 21% in the conventional group. Seroma formation and wound infection were significantly related to the conventional group (p-value = 0.01).

Conclusion: Our study recommends the utilization of ultrasound shears in ALND as it is a safe and accurate method that allows faster post-operative recovery with shorter drainage time and lower incidence of seroma or infection, without affecting operative time or lymph node yield.

Trial registration: Trial no.: PACTR202402831197428. Date of approval: 19/02/2024.

使用超声波剪减少乳腺癌患者腋窝淋巴结清扫术后血清肿形成的价值。
背景:腋窝淋巴结清扫术(ALND)是乳腺癌治疗的重要步骤。ALND通常使用射频电外科手术进行。使用这种能量的术后并发症(如延长引流时间、血清肿或感染)导致恢复时间延长。因此,这可能会延迟这类关键患者的辅助化疗/放疗的开始。使用超声波剪切机通过机械振荡提供广泛的组织效应。超声波剪中没有电路,减少了热损伤,从而减少了细胞损伤。目的:比较超声切割器在腋窝淋巴结清扫术中与常规射频电刀在手术时间、术后引流量及天数、术后疼痛、血肿或感染发生率、淋巴结产出率等方面的差异。方法:采用随机对照试验。它包括56例与BCS或MRM联合进行的乳腺癌ALND病例;术前或新辅助治疗后,28例采用超声剪行ALND, 28例采用射频电刀行ALND。结果:研究人群平均年龄为51±11.7岁,平均BMI为39。超声剪切组平均手术时间为29.4。常规组为±7.6 min,常规组为31.6±5.1 min。超声剪切组平均引流量为319.6±75.4 ml,常规组平均引流量为407.5±75.2 ml。超声剪切组平均引流天数为8±1天,常规组平均引流天数为12±2.2天。超声剪切组有6例血清形成,常规组有9例血清形成。超声剪切组血清肿并发感染的发生率为10%,而常规组为21%。血清肿形成及创面感染与常规组有显著相关性(p值= 0.01)。结论:我们的研究推荐使用超声切割器治疗ALND,因为它是一种安全准确的方法,术后恢复快,引流时间短,血肿或感染发生率低,且不影响手术时间和淋巴结产率。试验报名:试验编号:: PACTR202402831197428。批准日期:2024年2月19日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official publication of the National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, the Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute (JENCI) is an open access peer-reviewed journal that publishes on the latest innovations in oncology and thereby, providing academics and clinicians a leading research platform. JENCI welcomes submissions pertaining to all fields of basic, applied and clinical cancer research. Main topics of interest include: local and systemic anticancer therapy (with specific interest on applied cancer research from developing countries); experimental oncology; early cancer detection; randomized trials (including negatives ones); and key emerging fields of personalized medicine, such as molecular pathology, bioinformatics, and biotechnologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信