{"title":"在保乳手术中规范组织保存:超声引导比触诊减少40%的切除体积。","authors":"Jean Christian Nzengue, Vidmi Taolam Martin","doi":"10.1002/wjs.70136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultrasound guidance (US) may optimize breast-conserving surgery (BCS) by standardizing resection precision, but comparative quantitative data remain limited. This study evaluates whether US improves margin control and tissue preservation versus palpation-guided BCS using a calculated resection ratio (CRR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of 114 patients with BCS (37 palpation-guided; 77 US-guided [34 palpable and 43 nonpalpable]).</p><p><strong>Primary endpoints: </strong>positive margin rates, re-excision rates, and CRR. Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney U tests (CRR) and multivariate logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>US guidance reduced positive margins by 76% (2.2% vs. 9.0% and p < 0.0001) and re-excisions by 81% (2.6% vs. 14.0%). Resection efficiency improved by 40% (median CRR 1.8 vs. 3.0 and p < 0.001), with nonpalpable tumors achieving the lowest CRR (1.6). For a representative 2 cm tumor, US guidance reduced total resection volumes by 78% (17.6 vs. 81.4 cm<sup>3</sup>) and healthy tissue excision by 81% (14.6 vs. 78.4 cm<sup>3</sup>) compared to palpation-guided surgery. Multivariate analysis showed nonsignificant trends for the US (OR 0.375 and p = 0.416), though clinical benefits were consistent across subgroups. However, CRR correlated with cosmetic outcomes (91% vs. 78% \"Excellent/Good\"), suggesting dual oncologic-esthetic benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>US-guided BCS standardizes tissue preservation, reducing resection volumes by 40% while maintaining oncologic safety. CRR emerges as a replicable metric for surgical quality. Despite nonsignificant multivariate results, the magnitude of improvement supports US adoption where expertise exists.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standardizing Tissue Preservation in Breast-Conserving Surgery: Ultrasound Guidance Reduces Resection Volumes by 40% Compared to Palpation.\",\"authors\":\"Jean Christian Nzengue, Vidmi Taolam Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wjs.70136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultrasound guidance (US) may optimize breast-conserving surgery (BCS) by standardizing resection precision, but comparative quantitative data remain limited. This study evaluates whether US improves margin control and tissue preservation versus palpation-guided BCS using a calculated resection ratio (CRR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of 114 patients with BCS (37 palpation-guided; 77 US-guided [34 palpable and 43 nonpalpable]).</p><p><strong>Primary endpoints: </strong>positive margin rates, re-excision rates, and CRR. Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney U tests (CRR) and multivariate logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>US guidance reduced positive margins by 76% (2.2% vs. 9.0% and p < 0.0001) and re-excisions by 81% (2.6% vs. 14.0%). Resection efficiency improved by 40% (median CRR 1.8 vs. 3.0 and p < 0.001), with nonpalpable tumors achieving the lowest CRR (1.6). For a representative 2 cm tumor, US guidance reduced total resection volumes by 78% (17.6 vs. 81.4 cm<sup>3</sup>) and healthy tissue excision by 81% (14.6 vs. 78.4 cm<sup>3</sup>) compared to palpation-guided surgery. Multivariate analysis showed nonsignificant trends for the US (OR 0.375 and p = 0.416), though clinical benefits were consistent across subgroups. However, CRR correlated with cosmetic outcomes (91% vs. 78% \\\"Excellent/Good\\\"), suggesting dual oncologic-esthetic benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>US-guided BCS standardizes tissue preservation, reducing resection volumes by 40% while maintaining oncologic safety. CRR emerges as a replicable metric for surgical quality. Despite nonsignificant multivariate results, the magnitude of improvement supports US adoption where expertise exists.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.70136\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.70136","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:超声引导(US)可以通过标准化切除精度来优化保乳手术(BCS),但相对定量的数据仍然有限。本研究通过计算切除比(CRR)来评估US与触诊引导的BCS相比是否能改善切缘控制和组织保存。方法:回顾性分析114例BCS患者(触诊引导37例,us引导77例[34例可触及,43例不可触及])。主要终点:阳性切缘率、再切除率和CRR。统计分析采用Mann-Whitney U检验(CRR)和多元logistic回归。结果:与触诊引导手术相比,超声引导减少了76%的阳性边缘(2.2% vs. 9.0%和p3),健康组织切除减少了81% (14.6 vs. 78.4 cm3)。多变量分析显示美国的趋势不显著(OR 0.375和p = 0.416),尽管临床获益在亚组之间是一致的。然而,CRR与美容结果相关(91% vs 78%“优秀/良好”),表明肿瘤-美容双重益处。结论:美国引导的BCS规范了组织保存,在保持肿瘤安全性的同时减少了40%的切除体积。CRR成为衡量手术质量的可复制指标。尽管没有显著的多变量结果,但改善的幅度支持美国在专业知识存在的地方采用。
Standardizing Tissue Preservation in Breast-Conserving Surgery: Ultrasound Guidance Reduces Resection Volumes by 40% Compared to Palpation.
Background: Ultrasound guidance (US) may optimize breast-conserving surgery (BCS) by standardizing resection precision, but comparative quantitative data remain limited. This study evaluates whether US improves margin control and tissue preservation versus palpation-guided BCS using a calculated resection ratio (CRR).
Methods: Retrospective analysis of 114 patients with BCS (37 palpation-guided; 77 US-guided [34 palpable and 43 nonpalpable]).
Primary endpoints: positive margin rates, re-excision rates, and CRR. Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney U tests (CRR) and multivariate logistic regression.
Results: US guidance reduced positive margins by 76% (2.2% vs. 9.0% and p < 0.0001) and re-excisions by 81% (2.6% vs. 14.0%). Resection efficiency improved by 40% (median CRR 1.8 vs. 3.0 and p < 0.001), with nonpalpable tumors achieving the lowest CRR (1.6). For a representative 2 cm tumor, US guidance reduced total resection volumes by 78% (17.6 vs. 81.4 cm3) and healthy tissue excision by 81% (14.6 vs. 78.4 cm3) compared to palpation-guided surgery. Multivariate analysis showed nonsignificant trends for the US (OR 0.375 and p = 0.416), though clinical benefits were consistent across subgroups. However, CRR correlated with cosmetic outcomes (91% vs. 78% "Excellent/Good"), suggesting dual oncologic-esthetic benefits.
Conclusions: US-guided BCS standardizes tissue preservation, reducing resection volumes by 40% while maintaining oncologic safety. CRR emerges as a replicable metric for surgical quality. Despite nonsignificant multivariate results, the magnitude of improvement supports US adoption where expertise exists.
期刊介绍:
World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.