Literature DB >> 19050966

Breast specimen orientation.

M A Molina1, S Snell, D Franceschi, M Jorda, C Gomez, F L Moffat, J Powell, E Avisar.   

Abstract

Lumpectomy specimens are commonly divided into six sides: superficial, deep, superior, inferior, medial, and lateral. Orienting stitches are placed on the specimen during surgery to allow reorientation by pathology. Despite those efforts, specimen disorientation may occur. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation in orientation between surgeons and pathologists. Lumpectomy specimens were routinely oriented. An additional Prolene suture was randomly placed by the surgeon on one side to be localized by pathology. The results were recorded and the disorientation rate calculated. Specimen size and presence of skin and/or muscle were also recorded. There were 122 lumpectomy specimens prospectively entered. Average specimen volume was 95.5 cm(3). Twenty-four specimens had segments of skin or muscle. The additional sutures were evenly divided between the six sides. The overall disorientation rate was 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 23.1-40.2).The side-specific disorientation rates were 43%, 40%, 35%, 29%, 28%, and 14% for the deep, superficial, lateral, medial, superior, and inferior surfaces, respectively (no statistical difference). Presence of skin or muscle on the specimen did not contribute to better orientation. Specimen volumes, however, were highly associated with orientation. Specimens of <20 cm(3) had a disorientation rate of 78%, while larger specimen had a disorientation rate of 20% (p < .001). Specimen orientation with stitches placed on two surfaces is associated with a high disorientation rate. Better orientation techniques are necessary to minimize the specimen disorientation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19050966     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-008-0245-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  14 in total

Review 1.  Update of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic.

Authors:  Maureen P McEvoy; Jeffrey Landercasper; Himani R Naik; Sheldon Feldman
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-12

2.  Prognostic factors for residual occult disease in shave margins during partial mastectomy.

Authors:  Julie B Siegel; Rupak Mukherjee; Yeonhee Park; Abbie R Cluver; Catherine Chung; David J Cole; Mark A Lockett; Nancy Klauber-DeMore; Andrea M Abbott
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  The effect of simultaneous peripheral excision in breast conservation upon margin status.

Authors:  Roshani R Patel; Tianyu Li; Eric A Ross; Linda Sesa; Elin R Sigurdson; Richard J Bleicher
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-06-12       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Real-time Imaging of the Resection Bed Using a Handheld Probe to Reduce Incidence of Microscopic Positive Margins in Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Sarah J Erickson-Bhatt; Ryan M Nolan; Nathan D Shemonski; Steven G Adie; Jeffrey Putney; Donald Darga; Daniel T McCormick; Andrew J Cittadine; Adam M Zysk; Marina Marjanovic; Eric J Chaney; Guillermo L Monroy; Fredrick A South; Kimberly A Cradock; Z George Liu; Magesh Sundaram; Partha S Ray; Stephen A Boppart
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 12.701

5.  Intraoperative Assessment of Final Margins with a Handheld Optical Imaging Probe During Breast-Conserving Surgery May Reduce the Reoperation Rate: Results of a Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Adam M Zysk; Kai Chen; Edward Gabrielson; Lorraine Tafra; Evelyn A May Gonzalez; Joseph K Canner; Eric B Schneider; Andrew J Cittadine; P Scott Carney; Stephen A Boppart; Kimiko Tsuchiya; Kristen Sawyer; Lisa K Jacobs
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Does Gross Margin Examination Reduce Re-excision Rate in Breast Conservation for Invasive Carcinoma? CALLER Review.

Authors:  Suzanne Hoekstra; Diane Stoller; Haya Raef
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2020-03-30

7.  The Margins' Challenge: Risk Factors of Residual Disease After Breast Conserving Surgery in Early-stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Piero Fregatti; Marco Gipponi; Giulia Atzori; Raffaele DE Rosa; Raquel Diaz; Chiara Cornacchia; Marco Sparavigna; Alessandro Garlaschi; Liliana Belgioia; Alessandra Fozza; Francesca Pitto; Luca Boni; Eva Blondeaux; Francesca Depaoli; Federica Murelli; Simonetta Franchelli; Gabriele Zoppoli; Matteo Lambertini; Daniele Friedman
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2022 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.155

8.  Impact of margin assessment method on positive margin rate and total volume excised.

Authors:  Tracy-Ann Moo; Lydia Choi; Candice Culpepper; Cristina Olcese; Alexandra Heerdt; Lisa Sclafani; Tari A King; Anne S Reiner; Sujata Patil; Edi Brogi; Monica Morrow; Kimberly J Van Zee
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Optimizing surgical margins in breast conservation.

Authors:  Preya Ananthakrishnan; Fatih Levent Balci; Joseph P Crowe
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-12-09

10.  The effect of intraoperative specimen inking on lumpectomy re-excision rates.

Authors:  Mansher Singh; Gayatri Singh; Kevin T Hogan; Kristen A Atkins; Anneke T Schroen
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 2.754

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.