OBJECTIVE: To describe a new technique to prevent skin laceration during ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy with the insertion of a spinal needle between the mass and the skin. METHODS: The study includes 118 patients with 118 breast imaging-reporting and data system Category 3 masses located very close to the skin or areola, which were excised using the mammotome system with a spinal needle inserted just above the site of insertion of the probe. RESULTS: The mean distance between the most superficial portion of the mass to the under surface of the overlying skin was 1.3 ± 0.4 mm. The average procedure time was 13.5 ± 4.2 min. A complete excision was achieved in 100% of the cases, and the procedure was well tolerated by all the patients. No patient experienced serious adverse events such as a skin laceration. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to prevent skin laceration during vacuum assisted breast biopsy. Advances in knowledge: The method described in this study is simple, safe and well tolerated by patients.
OBJECTIVE: To describe a new technique to prevent skin laceration during ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy with the insertion of a spinal needle between the mass and the skin. METHODS: The study includes 118 patients with 118 breast imaging-reporting and data system Category 3 masses located very close to the skin or areola, which were excised using the mammotome system with a spinal needle inserted just above the site of insertion of the probe. RESULTS: The mean distance between the most superficial portion of the mass to the under surface of the overlying skin was 1.3 ± 0.4 mm. The average procedure time was 13.5 ± 4.2 min. A complete excision was achieved in 100% of the cases, and the procedure was well tolerated by all the patients. No patient experienced serious adverse events such as a skin laceration. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to prevent skin laceration during vacuum assisted breast biopsy. Advances in knowledge: The method described in this study is simple, safe and well tolerated by patients.
Authors: S H Parker; A J Klaus; P J McWey; K J Schilling; T E Cupples; N Duchesne; M A Guenin; J K Harness Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Richard E Fine; Beth A Boyd; Pat W Whitworth; Julian A Kim; Jay K Harness; William E Burak Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: U Krainick-Strobel; B Huber; I Majer; A Bergmann; C Gall; I Gruber; J Hoffmann; S Paepke; U Peisker; R Walz-Mattmüller; K Siegmann; D Wallwiener; M Hahn Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Florentina Guzmán-Aroca; Juan de Dios Berná-Serna; Ana Azahara García-Ortega; Dolores Hernández-Gómez; Juan de Dios Berná-Mestre Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 4.241