Wound healing and postsurgical complications in breast cancer surgery: a comparison between PEAK PlasmaBlade and conventional electrosurgery – a preliminary report of a case series.
10.4174/astr.2018.95.3.129
- Author:
Corrado CHIAPPA
1
;
Anna FACHINETTI
;
Carlo BOERI
;
Veronica ARLANT
;
Stefano RAUSEI
;
Gianlorenzo DIONIGI
;
Francesca ROVERA
Author Information
1. First Division of Surgery - Senology Research Center, Department of Surgical and Morphological Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. corrado.doc@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Breast neoplasms;
Wound infection;
Operative surgical procedures;
Equipment and supplies;
Intraoperative complications
- MeSH:
Body Mass Index;
Breast Neoplasms*;
Breast*;
Comorbidity;
Drainage;
Electrosurgery*;
Equipment and Supplies;
Humans;
Incidence;
Intraoperative Complications;
Length of Stay;
Lymph Node Excision;
Mastectomy;
Seroma;
Surgical Procedures, Operative;
Wound Healing*;
Wound Infection;
Wounds and Injuries*
- From:Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
2018;95(3):129-134
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
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.
