Literature DB >> 31084760

Breast compression and experienced pain during mammography by use of three different compression paddles.

Nataliia Moshina1, Sofie Sebuødegård2, Kate Torild Evensen3, Caroline Hantho4, Kari Alette Iden5, Solveig Hofvind6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare pain experienced during screening mammography, using three different compression paddles: a fixed paddle standardizing pressure (study paddle), a flexible, and a fixed paddle.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using a numeric rating scale (NRS), ranged 0-10, we collected information on pain experienced during mammography from a questionnaire completed by 4,675 women screened in Stavanger, May-November 2017, as a part of BreastScreen Norway. The questionnaire also provided information on factors possibly associated with pain. Data on compression force, pressure and breast characteristics were extracted from the DICOM-header, and a breast density software. T-tests were used to compare mean values of the parameters between the types of compression paddles. Linear regression was used to determine the association of a score of ≥7 versus <7 on NRS for experienced pain by compression paddle, adjusting for pressure, breast characteristics and associated factors.
RESULTS: The mean of experienced pain did not differ for the study and flexible paddle (2.5 on NRS), and was lower for the study paddle compared to the fixed paddle (2.4 versus 2.6 on NRS, p < 0.05). Pain in shoulder(s) and/or neck prior to mammography was associated with 33% (RR 1.33, 95%CI 1.07-1.65) higher risk of a score of ≥7 versus <7 for experienced pain.
CONCLUSION: The majority of women reported low scores of experienced pain during mammography, independent of compression paddle used. Further research on image quality is needed to fully understand which paddles should be preferred in a screening setting.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer screening; Breast compression; Compression paddle; Mammography; Pain

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31084760     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.04.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  3 in total

1.  Comparison of technical parameters and women's experience between self-compression and standard compression modes in mammography screening: a single-blind randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Natalia Arenas; Rodrigo Alcantara; Margarita Posso; Javier Louro; Daniela Perez-Leon; Belén Ejarque; Mónica Arranz; Jose Maiques; Xavier Castells; Francesc Macià; Marta Román; Ana Rodríguez-Arana
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  The Factors for Success and Lack of Success in the Breast Cancer Patient Care Pathway: A Qualitative Study From the Health Care Staff Perspective.

Authors:  Eija Metsälä; Tanja Schroderus-Salo; Kjersti Straume; Bergliot Strom; Laurent Marmy; Mona Øynes; José A Pires Jorge; Liis Randle; Siret Kivistik
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2022-07-01

Review 3.  Mammographic compression practices of force- and pressure-standardisation protocol: A scoping review.

Authors:  Elizabeth Serwan; Donna Matthews; Josephine Davies; Minh Chau
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2020-05-18
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.