BibTex RIS Cite

Açık Meme Biyopsileri ve Komplikasyonları: Gelecekteki Tedaviyi Etkiler mi?

Year 2009, Volume: 42 Issue: 2, 45 - 49, 01.08.2009

Abstract

The purpose of this study is investigation of the wound complication rates after öpen surgical breast biopsies, description of the factors related to complications and the effects of these complications on breast cancer surgery. Two hundred nineteen women with öpen surgical breast biopsies in 2008 have been evaluated prospectively. Age, breast cancer, hipertention and dia-betes mellitus history, guide-wire localisation before surgery, the size of the lesion that has been operated, previous percuta-neous or öpen biopsies to the same breast, biopsy type and presence of drains were the parameters recorded. V/ound complications after biopsies have been recorded during 30 days follow-up. Wound complications have been observed in 36 (16.4%) patients operated with öpen surgical breast biopsy. These complications were surgical site infections in 20 (9.1%) patients, hemotomas in 12 (5.5%) patients, bleeding in 9 (4.1%) patients and seroma in 18 (8.2%) patients. At univariate anaiysis; patient age över 65, previous surgery or biopsy to the same breast, diabetes mellitus, incisional biopsy, diagnosis of malignancy, lesion size greater than 2 cm and specimen volüme more than 50 cm3 were the parameters increasing wound complications after öpen surgical breast biopsies. At muitivariate anaiysis; previous surgical intervention to the same breast (p= 0.033), specimen volüme more than 50 cm3 (p= 0.001), incisional biopsy (p= 0.003) ıvere the parameters affecting the complication rates. Malignancy was detected for 75 (34.2%) patients and ali these patients were reoperated. VVhile 22 patients with wound complications have been operated in 27 days after breast biopsy, 53 patients without wound complications have been operated in 18 days (p= 0.03). Twenty-four patients were seen with wound complications in 30 days follow-up after breast cancer surgey. These complications were surgical site infection in 12 (16%) patients, seroma in 10 (13.3%) patients and hematoma in 2 (2.6%) patients. At univariate anaiysis; previous interventions to the same breast, lesion size more than 2 cm and presence of complication after diagnos-tic breast biopsy were the parameters increasing wound complications. At muitivariate anaiysis; only the occurance of complication after breast biopsy was a significant factor (p= 0.001). It should kept in mind that wound complication rate is high after öpen surgical breast biopsy. Aseptic precautions should be taken and procedure should be done under sterile conditions. Maximum çare should be taken during procedure. Although antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended before surgery, carefui wound çare, wound dressing and follow-up is important. One should pay attention to the signs of surgical site infections and as soon as these signs are observed the treatment should have been started. The detay of the surgical treatment can be preven-ted with close follow-up and early treatment. İt seems that the technical factors belonging to surgical procedure rather than patient and lesion related factors are important for wound complications. Therefore unnecessary tissue removal during excisional biopsies should be avoided.

References

  • Morrow M. The evaluation of common breast problems. Am Fam Physician 2000;61:2371-8.
  • Donegan WL. Evaluation of a palpable breast mass. N Engl J Med 1992;327:937-42.
  • Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, et al. Non-palpable breast lesions: Stereotactic automated large-core biopsies. Radiology 1991;180:403-7.
  • Florentine BD, Cobb CJ, Frankel K, Graves T, Martin SE.
  • Core needle biopsy. A useful adjunct to fine-needle aspirati- on in select patients with palpabl breast lesions. Cancer 1997;81:33-9.
  • Brenner RJ, Bassett LW, Fajando LL, et al. Stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy: A multi-institutional prospective trial. Radiology 2001;218:866-72.
  • Morrow M, Venta L, Slinson T, Bennett C. Prospective com- parison of stereotactic core biopsy and surgicai excision as diagnostic procedures for breast cancer patients. Ann Surg 2001;233:537-41.
  • Tran CL, Larger S, Villa GB. Does reoperation predispose to postoperative wound infection in women undergoing opera- tion for breast cancer. Am Surg 2003;69:852-6.
  • Löfgren M, Andersson i, Lindholm K. Stereotactic fine-need- le aspiration for cytoiogic diagnosis of non-palpable breast lesions. AJRAm J Roentgenol 1990;154:1191-5.
  • Friese CR, Neville BA, Edge SB, Hassett MJ, Earie CC. Breast biopsy patterns and outcomes in surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare data. Cancer 2009:115: 716-24.
  • Oisen MA, Chu-Ongsakul S, Brandt KE, Dietz JR, Mayfield J, Fraser VJ. Hospital-associated costs due to surgicai site infection after breast surgery. Arch Surg 2008;143:53-60.
  • Viiar-Compte D, Jacquemin B, Robles-Vidal C, Voikow P. Surgicai site infections in breast surgery: Case-control study. World J Surg 2004;28:242-6.
  • Zoutman D, Pearce P, McKenzie M, Taylor G. Surgicai wound infections occurring in day surgery patients. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:277-82.
  • ReyJE, Gardner SM, Cushing RD. Determinants of surgicai site infection after breast biopsy. Am J Infect Control 2005; 3:126-9.
  • Nori J, Bazzocchi M, Boeri C, et al. Role of axillary iymph node ultrasound and iarge core biopsy in the preoperative assessment of patients seiected for sentineI node biopsy. Radiol Med 2005;109:330-44.
  • Karakaya M, Karaman N, Özaslan C, Kurukahvecioğiu O, Bircan HY, Altınok M. Meme kanseri cerrahisi sonrası yara komplikasyonları. Meme Sağlığı Dergisi 2006;2:85-8.
  • MahmoudB, EI-TamerB, Marie W, TracyS. Morbidity and mor- tality follovving breast cancer surgery in women national bench- marks for standards of çare. Ann Surg 2007;245:665-71.
  • Lipshy KA, Neifeld JP, Böyle RM, et al. Complications of mastectomy and their relationship to biopsy technique. Ann Surg Oncoi 1996;3:290-4.
  • Saint-Jacques N, Younis T, Dewar R, Rayson D. Wait times for breast cancer çare. Br J Cancer 2007;96:162-8.
  • Hail JC, Hail JL. Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergo­ ing breast surgery. J Hosp Infect 2000;46:165-70.
  • Rotstein C, Ferguson R, Cummings KM, Piedmonte MR, Lucey J, Banish A. Determinants of clean surgicai wound infections for breast procedures at an oncology çenter. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:207-14.
  • D'Amico DF, Parimbelli P, Ruffolo C. Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean surgery: Breast surgery and hernia repair. J Chemother 2001; 13:108-11.
  • Penel N, Yazdanpanah Y, Chauvet MP, et al. Prevention of surgicai site infection after breast cancer surgery by targe- ted prophylaxis antibiotic in patients at high risk of surgicai site infection. J Surg Oncoi 2007;96:124-9.

Surgical Breast Biopsies and Complications: Is There an Effect on Future Treatments?

Year 2009, Volume: 42 Issue: 2, 45 - 49, 01.08.2009

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı açık cerrahi meme biyopsileri sonrası gelişen yara komplikasyon oranlarını, komplikasyonlara etki eden faktörleri tespit etmek ve komplikasyonların meme kanseri cerrahisine etkilerini araştırmaktır. Kliniğimizde 2008 yılında açık cerrahi meme biyopsisi uygulanan 219 kadın hasta prospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Hastaların yaş, meme kanseri, hipertansiyon ve diyabet öyküleri, girişim öncesi telle işaretleme, müdahale edilen lezyonun boyutu, daha önce aynı lezyona yapılmış perkütan ve açık biyopsiler, biyopsi şekli ve girişimde dren konulup konulmadığı kaydedildi. Hastaların biyopsi sonrası 30 günlük takiplerindeki yara komplikasyonları kaydedildi. Açık cerrahi biyopsi uygulanan hastaların 36 (%16.4)'sında yara komplikasyonları gelişti. Yirmi (%9.1) hastada cerrahi alan infeksiyonu, 12 (%5.5) hastada hematom, 9 (%4.1) hastada kanama ve 18 (%8.2) hastada seroma saptandı. Tek değişkenli analizde; hasta yaşının 65'ten büyük olması, aynı memeye daha önce meme cerrahisi veya meme biyopsisi uygulanması, diyabet, insizyonel biyopsi yapılması, malignite saptanması, lezyon boyutunun 2 cm'den büyük olması ve spesimen hacminin 50 cm3'ten büyük olması açık cerrahi biyopsilerden sonra yara komplikasyonlarını artıran parametreler olarak saptandı. Çok değişkenli analizde ise; aynı memeye daha önce cerrahi girişim yapılmış olması (p= 0.033), spesimen volümünün 50 cm3'ten fazla olması (p= 0.001) ve insizyonel biyopsi uygulanması (p- 0.003) komplikasyon gelişmesinde etkili parametreler olarak bulundu. Hastaların 75 (%34.2)'inde malignite saptandı ve bu hastalar daha sonra yeniden ameliyat edildi. Biyopsi sonrası yara komplikasyonu gelişen 22 hasta biyopsiden 27 gün sonra ameliyat edilebilirken, yara komplikasyonu gelişmeyen 53 hasta 18 gün sonra ameliyat edilebilmişti (p= 0.03). Meme kanseri cerrahisi sonrasında ise 30 günlük takipte, 24 hastada yara komplikasyonları gelişti. On iki (%16) hastada cerrahi alan infeksiyonu, 10 (%13.3) hastada seroma ve 2 (%2.6) hastada hematom saptandı. Tek değişkenli analizlerde; daha önce aynı memeye girişimde bulunulması, lezyonun 2 cm'den büyük olması ve tanı amacıyla yapılan biyopsiden sonra komplikasyon gelişmesi, yara komplikasyonlarına etki eden parametreler olarak bulundu. Çok değişkenli analizlerde ise yalnızca ilk biyopsiden sonra komplikasyon gelişmiş olması anlamlı bulundu (p= 0.001). Açık meme biyopsilerinde yara komplikasyon oranlarının yüksek olduğu akılda tutulmalıdır. Bu girişim sırasında asepsi kurallarına uyulmalı ve işlem steril ortamlarda gerçekleştirilmelidir. işlem yapılırken azami özen gösterilmelidir. Girişim öncesi antibiyotik profilaksisi önerilmese de girişimden sonra iyi yara bakımı ve takibi yapılmalı, yara pansumanları ihmal edilmemelidir. Cerrahi alan infeksiyonunun belirtileri için dikkatli olunmalı ve belirtiler tespit edilir edilmez tedavi başlanmalıdır. Yakın takip ve erken tedavi ile hastaların cerrahi tedavisinin gecikmesi önlenebilir. Açık biyopsiden sonra yara komplikasyonlarına hastaya ve lezyona ait faktörlerden çok işleme ait teknik faktörler etkili gibi görünmektedir. Bu nedenle eksizyonel biyopsiler sırasında gereksiz doku çıkarılmasından kaçınılmalıdır.

References

  • Morrow M. The evaluation of common breast problems. Am Fam Physician 2000;61:2371-8.
  • Donegan WL. Evaluation of a palpable breast mass. N Engl J Med 1992;327:937-42.
  • Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, et al. Non-palpable breast lesions: Stereotactic automated large-core biopsies. Radiology 1991;180:403-7.
  • Florentine BD, Cobb CJ, Frankel K, Graves T, Martin SE.
  • Core needle biopsy. A useful adjunct to fine-needle aspirati- on in select patients with palpabl breast lesions. Cancer 1997;81:33-9.
  • Brenner RJ, Bassett LW, Fajando LL, et al. Stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy: A multi-institutional prospective trial. Radiology 2001;218:866-72.
  • Morrow M, Venta L, Slinson T, Bennett C. Prospective com- parison of stereotactic core biopsy and surgicai excision as diagnostic procedures for breast cancer patients. Ann Surg 2001;233:537-41.
  • Tran CL, Larger S, Villa GB. Does reoperation predispose to postoperative wound infection in women undergoing opera- tion for breast cancer. Am Surg 2003;69:852-6.
  • Löfgren M, Andersson i, Lindholm K. Stereotactic fine-need- le aspiration for cytoiogic diagnosis of non-palpable breast lesions. AJRAm J Roentgenol 1990;154:1191-5.
  • Friese CR, Neville BA, Edge SB, Hassett MJ, Earie CC. Breast biopsy patterns and outcomes in surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare data. Cancer 2009:115: 716-24.
  • Oisen MA, Chu-Ongsakul S, Brandt KE, Dietz JR, Mayfield J, Fraser VJ. Hospital-associated costs due to surgicai site infection after breast surgery. Arch Surg 2008;143:53-60.
  • Viiar-Compte D, Jacquemin B, Robles-Vidal C, Voikow P. Surgicai site infections in breast surgery: Case-control study. World J Surg 2004;28:242-6.
  • Zoutman D, Pearce P, McKenzie M, Taylor G. Surgicai wound infections occurring in day surgery patients. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:277-82.
  • ReyJE, Gardner SM, Cushing RD. Determinants of surgicai site infection after breast biopsy. Am J Infect Control 2005; 3:126-9.
  • Nori J, Bazzocchi M, Boeri C, et al. Role of axillary iymph node ultrasound and iarge core biopsy in the preoperative assessment of patients seiected for sentineI node biopsy. Radiol Med 2005;109:330-44.
  • Karakaya M, Karaman N, Özaslan C, Kurukahvecioğiu O, Bircan HY, Altınok M. Meme kanseri cerrahisi sonrası yara komplikasyonları. Meme Sağlığı Dergisi 2006;2:85-8.
  • MahmoudB, EI-TamerB, Marie W, TracyS. Morbidity and mor- tality follovving breast cancer surgery in women national bench- marks for standards of çare. Ann Surg 2007;245:665-71.
  • Lipshy KA, Neifeld JP, Böyle RM, et al. Complications of mastectomy and their relationship to biopsy technique. Ann Surg Oncoi 1996;3:290-4.
  • Saint-Jacques N, Younis T, Dewar R, Rayson D. Wait times for breast cancer çare. Br J Cancer 2007;96:162-8.
  • Hail JC, Hail JL. Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergo­ ing breast surgery. J Hosp Infect 2000;46:165-70.
  • Rotstein C, Ferguson R, Cummings KM, Piedmonte MR, Lucey J, Banish A. Determinants of clean surgicai wound infections for breast procedures at an oncology çenter. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:207-14.
  • D'Amico DF, Parimbelli P, Ruffolo C. Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean surgery: Breast surgery and hernia repair. J Chemother 2001; 13:108-11.
  • Penel N, Yazdanpanah Y, Chauvet MP, et al. Prevention of surgicai site infection after breast cancer surgery by targe- ted prophylaxis antibiotic in patients at high risk of surgicai site infection. J Surg Oncoi 2007;96:124-9.
There are 23 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Lutfi Doğan This is me

Niyazi Karaman This is me

Cihangir Özaslan This is me

Can Atalay This is me

Mehmet Altınok This is me

Publication Date August 1, 2009
Published in Issue Year 2009 Volume: 42 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Doğan, L. ., Karaman, N. ., Özaslan, C. ., Atalay, C. ., et al. (2009). Surgical Breast Biopsies and Complications: Is There an Effect on Future Treatments?. Acta Oncologica Turcica, 42(2), 45-49.
AMA Doğan L, Karaman N, Özaslan C, Atalay C, Altınok M. Surgical Breast Biopsies and Complications: Is There an Effect on Future Treatments?. Acta Oncologica Turcica. August 2009;42(2):45-49.
Chicago Doğan, Lutfi, Niyazi Karaman, Cihangir Özaslan, Can Atalay, and Mehmet Altınok. “Surgical Breast Biopsies and Complications: Is There an Effect on Future Treatments?”. Acta Oncologica Turcica 42, no. 2 (August 2009): 45-49.
EndNote Doğan L, Karaman N, Özaslan C, Atalay C, Altınok M (August 1, 2009) Surgical Breast Biopsies and Complications: Is There an Effect on Future Treatments?. Acta Oncologica Turcica 42 2 45–49.
IEEE L. . Doğan, N. . Karaman, C. . Özaslan, C. . Atalay, and M. . Altınok, “Surgical Breast Biopsies and Complications: Is There an Effect on Future Treatments?”, Acta Oncologica Turcica, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 45–49, 2009.
ISNAD Doğan, Lutfi et al. “Surgical Breast Biopsies and Complications: Is There an Effect on Future Treatments?”. Acta Oncologica Turcica 42/2 (August 2009), 45-49.
JAMA Doğan L, Karaman N, Özaslan C, Atalay C, Altınok M. Surgical Breast Biopsies and Complications: Is There an Effect on Future Treatments?. Acta Oncologica Turcica. 2009;42:45–49.
MLA Doğan, Lutfi et al. “Surgical Breast Biopsies and Complications: Is There an Effect on Future Treatments?”. Acta Oncologica Turcica, vol. 42, no. 2, 2009, pp. 45-49.
Vancouver Doğan L, Karaman N, Özaslan C, Atalay C, Altınok M. Surgical Breast Biopsies and Complications: Is There an Effect on Future Treatments?. Acta Oncologica Turcica. 2009;42(2):45-9.