4.1 Article

The Effect of Plasmakinetic Cautery on Wound Healing and Complications in Mastectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF BREAST CANCER
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 198-201

出版社

KOREAN BREAST CANCER SOC
DOI: 10.4048/jbc.2013.16.2.198

关键词

Breast neoplasms; Complications; Plasmakinetic cautery; Wound healing

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Surgical equipment used in breast cancer surgery that affects wound healing and minimizes complications seems to be a popular investigation topic. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of plasmakinetic cautery on wound healing in patients receiving mastectomy. Methods: Forty-six consecutive breast cancer patients receiving modified radical mastectomy were evaluated prospectively. Plasmakinetic cautery was used in 24 operations and electrocautery was used in 22 operations in random order to manage skin flaps and excise breast tissue. In the postoperative period, vacuum drainage amount and duration time as well as the start time of arm exercises were recorded. Complications like seroma, surgical site infection, hematoma, and flap necrosis were determined. Results: Age, body mass index, breast volume and flap area parameters were similar in each group. Mean drainage duration was found to be 5.5 days in the plasmacautery group and 7.9 days in the electrocautery group (p=0.020). In the plasmacautery and electrocautery groups,. mean drainage volume was 707 and 1,093 mL, respectively (p=0.025). There was no statistical significance between the groups when operation duration, amount of blood loss, time to start arm exercises, seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection, and flap necrosis were considered. Conclusion: Plasmakinetic cautery is a promising new surgical instrument that provides atraumatic, scalpel-like cutting precision and electrosurgical-like hemostasis, resulting in minimal tissue injury. So, plasmacautery shortens the drainage amount and duration time compared to electrocautery without elongating operation duration or increasing the amount of blood loss.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据