| Literature DB >> 23316373 |
Enora Laas1, Cécile Poilroux, Corinne Bézu, Charles Coutant, Serge Uzan, Roman Rouzier, Elisabeth Chéreau.
Abstract
Background. To reduce the incidence of microbial colonization of suture material, Triclosan- (TC-)coated suture materials have been developed. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of suture-related complications (SRC) in breast surgery with and without the use of TC-coated sutures. Methods. We performed a study on two consecutive periods: 92 patients underwent breast surgery with conventional sutures (Group 1) and 98 with TC-coated sutures (Group 2). We performed subgroups analyses and developed a model to predict SRC in Group 1 and tested its clinical efficacy in Group 2 using a nomogram-based approach. Results. The SRC rates were 13% in Group 1 and 8% in Group 2. We found that some subgroups may benefit from TC-coated sutures. The discrimination obtained from a logistic regression model developed in Group 1 and based on multifocality, age and axillary lymphadenectomy was 0.88 (95% CI 0.77-0.95) (P < 10(-4)). There was a significant difference in Group 2 between predicted probabilities and observed percentages (P < 10(-5)). The predicted and observed proportions of complications in the high-risk group were 38% and 13%, respectively. Conclusion. This study used individual predictions of SRC and showed that using TC-coated suture may prevent SRC. This was particularly significant in high-risk patients.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23316373 PMCID: PMC3536044 DOI: 10.1155/2012/819578
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Breast Cancer ISSN: 2090-3189
Patient, tumor, and surgical characteristics.
| Group 1 | Group 2 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Patient characteristics | |||
|
| |||
| Age med (min–max) | 55.5 (14–86) | 54.5 (23–87) | 0.6 |
| Breast surgery history | 24 (26) | 26 (26) | 0.9 |
| Radiotherapy history | 1 (1) | 2 (2) | 0.6 |
| Medical history | |||
| Diabetes mellitus | 10 (11) | 7 (7) | 0.4 |
| Tobacco use | 14 (15) | 20 (20) | 0.4 |
| High blood pressure | 28 (30) | 25 (25) | 0.4 |
| BMI med (min–max) | 23.9 (16.4–42.2) | 24.8 (17.5–48) | 0.8 |
| Corticosteroid therapy | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.9 |
| Immunodepression | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.9 |
|
| |||
| Surgery | |||
|
| |||
| Mastectomy | 26 (28) | 28 (28) | 0.9 |
| Conservative surgery | 56 (61) | 64 (65) | 0.5 |
| Revision lumpectomy | 3 (3) | 4 (4) | 0.7 |
| Lymph node biopsy | 23 (25) | 36 (37) | 0.08 |
| Axillary lymphadenectomy | 34 (37) | 33 (34) | 0.6 |
| Wire localization | 27 (29) | 41 (42) | 0.07 |
|
| |||
| Tumor characteristics | |||
|
| |||
| Bilateral | 7 (8) | 14 (14) | 0.14 |
| Malignant tumor | 65 (76) | 72 (77) | 0.9 |
| Tumor size med (min–max) | 20.8 (4–65) | 21 (1–70) | 0.8 |
| Multifocality | 7 (8) | 14 (14) | 0.14 |
| Number of axillary lymph nodes med (min–max) | 11 (4–23) | 10 (5–22) | 0.4 |
|
| |||
| Neoadjuvant therapies | |||
|
| |||
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy | 7 (11) | 5 (7) | 0.4 |
Group 1: traditional suture material.
Group 2: sutures coated with triclosan.
Surgical and postoperative course.
| Group 1 | Group 2 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Surgical course | |||
|
| |||
| Prophylactic antibiotic treatment | 66 (72) | 80 (82) | 0.1 |
| Operation duration med (min–max) | 60 (20–220) | 80 (20–220) | 0.0003 |
| NNIS score | |||
| 0 | 66 (88) | 59 (74) | |
| 1 | 9 (12) | 20 (25) | 0.07 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 (1) | |
| Postoperative anticoagulation | 64 (74) | 81 (83) | 0.13 |
| Breast drainage | 36 (39) | 34 (35) | 0.5 |
| Axillary drainage | 39 (42) | 35 (36) | 0.3 |
| Compressive bandage | 18 (20) | 29 (30) | 0.1 |
| Breast drainage duration | 3 (1–6) | 3.5 (1–8) | 0.3 |
| Axillary drainage duration (days) med (range) | 5 (1–9) | 5 (2–7) | 0.5 |
|
| |||
| Postoperative course | |||
|
| |||
| All complications | 27 (29) | 26 (28) | 0.8 |
| Hematoma | 4 (4) | 8 (8) | 0.3 |
| Seroma | 17 (18) | 18 (19) | 0.9 |
|
| 12 (13) | 8 (8) | 0.3 |
| Surgical site infections | 10 (11) | 6 (6) | 0.2 |
| Fever | 3 (3) | 2 (2) | 0.6 |
| Superficial infection | 2 (2) | 3 (3) | 0.7 |
| Deep infection | 4 (4) | 2 (2) | 0.4 |
| Discharge | 6 (6) | 3 (3) | 0.3 |
| Cutaneous complications | 7 (8) | 3 (3) | 0.2 |
| Wound dehiscence | 2 (2) | 0 | 0.14 |
| Necroses | 0 | 0 | |
| Wound healing delay | 5 (5) | 2 (2) | 0.2 |
| Allergy | 0 | 1 (1) | 0.3 |
| Axillary bridle | 1 (1) | 0 | 0.3 |
Figure 1Forest plot representing odds ratios and their confidence intervals for subgroups.
Logistic regression: risk of complications following breast surgery performed on patients of group 1 (traditional suture material).
| OR |
| |
|---|---|---|
| Multifocality | 18 (2.2–148) | 0.007 |
| Interaction between age and axillary lymphadenectomy | 1.04 (1.01–1.07) | 0.009 |
Univariate significant variables: conservative surgery, axillary lymphadenectomy, axillary drainage, breast drainage duration, postoperative anticoagulation, and multifocality.
Figure 2Receiver-operating characteristic curve of predictions from the model to predict complications in the training set (traditional suture) (plain curve) and in the validation set (TC-coated suture) (dotted curve).
Figure 3Calibration of the model to predict complications.