4.0 Article

Wound healing and postsurgical complications in breast cancer surgery: a comparison between PEAK PlasmaBlade and conventional electrosurgery - a preliminary report of a case series

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL TREATMENT AND RESEARCH
卷 95, 期 3, 页码 129-134

出版社

KOREAN SURGICAL SOCIETY
DOI: 10.4174/astr.2018.95.3.129

关键词

Breast neoplasms; Wound infection; Operative surgical procedures; Equipment and supplies; Intraoperative complications

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: PEAK PlasmaBlade is a recent and distinctive type of electrosurgical device. Previous studies have already documented some meaningful advantages of this device over conventional electrosurgery. This study compared the use of PEAK PlasmaBlade to standard electrosurgery in mastectomy and breast conservative surgery. The purpose was to test the impact of PEAK PlasmaBlade on the wound-healing process and on postsurgical complications in breast cancer surgery. Methods: Sixty patients undergoing breast cancer surgery were enrolled. The PEAK PlasmaBlade was used for 20 of those. A standard electrosurgical device was used for the other 40 patients. The 2 groups were homogenous in age, body mass index, comorbidities and type of surgery. We recorded wound complications, serum drainage amount and duration of stay, blood loss, time of surgery, length of hospital stay, and total number of medications required. Results: The 2 groups were not significantly different in terms of patient characteristics. A statistically significant reduction in incidence of seroma was observed in the PEAK group: only 10% versus 37.5% of the patients in the conventional electrosurgery group developed this complication (Fisher exact test, P = 0.034). Conclusion: Seroma is the most important wound complication in breast surgery. The research of new instruments that might reduce its incidence is desirable. In order to validate or deny the results of this study, it is necessary to enroll more subjects and to consider the impact of this device on axillary lymph node dissection.

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

4.0
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