CONTEXT: Preoperative wire localization (WL), the most common localization technique for nonpalpable breast lesions, has drawbacks including scheduling constraints, cost, and patient discomfort. OBJECTIVE: To reduce WL use in our health care system, we investigated using hydrogel clips to facilitate intraoperative ultrasonography-guided lumpectomies. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records of patients with nonpalpable, ultrasound-visible breast lesions who underwent lumpectomy by 7 surgeons at 4 pilot sites in Kaiser Permanente Northern California between January 2015 and October 2015. Hydrogel clips, used for several years before the study period, were placed routinely during core-needle biopsy in all patients with nonpalpable, ultrasound-visible breast lesions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Localization method, lesion size, margin positivity, and receipt of neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: One hundred forty-three patients underwent hydrogel clip placement and lumpectomy by pilot-site surgeons. Localization consisted of intraoperative ultrasonography alone, preoperative skin marking, or WL. Of the 143 patients, 71.3% did not need WL (60.8% ultrasonography alone and 10.5% skin marking). The non-WL and WL groups had similarly sized lesions, and the positive margin rate was 7.2% overall, with no significant difference between the non-WL and WL groups (5.9% vs 11.5%, p = 0.33). Of the 12 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 8 (67%) did not require WL. CONCLUSION: A multifacility protocol using intraoperative ultrasonography to visualize hydrogel clips was implemented, which decreased WL procedures and produced no significant difference in margin positivity between the WL and non-WL groups. This technique can be a cost-effective alternative to WL in patients who are candidates for hydrogel clip placement.
CONTEXT: Preoperative wire localization (WL), the most common localization technique for nonpalpable breast lesions, has drawbacks including scheduling constraints, cost, and patient discomfort. OBJECTIVE: To reduce WL use in our health care system, we investigated using hydrogel clips to facilitate intraoperative ultrasonography-guided lumpectomies. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records of patients with nonpalpable, ultrasound-visible breast lesions who underwent lumpectomy by 7 surgeons at 4 pilot sites in Kaiser Permanente Northern California between January 2015 and October 2015. Hydrogel clips, used for several years before the study period, were placed routinely during core-needle biopsy in all patients with nonpalpable, ultrasound-visible breast lesions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Localization method, lesion size, margin positivity, and receipt of neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: One hundred forty-three patients underwent hydrogel clip placement and lumpectomy by pilot-site surgeons. Localization consisted of intraoperative ultrasonography alone, preoperative skin marking, or WL. Of the 143 patients, 71.3% did not need WL (60.8% ultrasonography alone and 10.5% skin marking). The non-WL and WL groups had similarly sized lesions, and the positive margin rate was 7.2% overall, with no significant difference between the non-WL and WL groups (5.9% vs 11.5%, p = 0.33). Of the 12 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 8 (67%) did not require WL. CONCLUSION: A multifacility protocol using intraoperative ultrasonography to visualize hydrogel clips was implemented, which decreased WL procedures and produced no significant difference in margin positivity between the WL and non-WL groups. This technique can be a cost-effective alternative to WL in patients who are candidates for hydrogel clip placement.
Authors: Frans D Rahusen; Andre J A Bremers; Hans F J Fabry; A H M Taets van Amerongen; Rob P A Boom; S Meijer Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Rebecca L Klein; Julie A Mook; David M Euhus; Roshni Rao; Ralph T Wynn; Amy B Eastman; A Marilyn Leitch Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: James W Jakub; Richard J Gray; Amy C Degnim; Judy C Boughey; Mary Gardner; Charles E Cox Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Eric Manahan; Li Wang; Steven Chen; Diana Dickson-Witmer; Junjia Zhu; Dennis Holmes; Rena Kass Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Peter J Lovrics; Charlie H Goldsmith; Nicole Hodgson; David McCready; Gabriela Gohla; Colm Boylan; Sylvie Cornacchi; Michael Reedijk Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jenevieve H Hughes; Mark C Mason; Richard J Gray; Sarah A McLaughlin; Amy C Degnim; Jack T Fulmer; Barbara A Pockaj; Patricia J Karstaedt; Michael C Roarke Journal: Breast J Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: James O Murphy; Tracy-Ann Moo; Tari A King; Kimberly J Van Zee; Kristine A Villegas; Michelle Stempel; Anne Eaton; Jean M St Germain; Elizabeth Morris; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jeffery M Chakedis; Annie Tang; Gillian E Kuehner; Brooke Vuong; Liisa L Lyon; Lucinda A Romero; Benjamin M Raber; Melinda M Mortenson; Veronica C Shim; Nicole M Datrice-Hill; Jennifer R McEvoy; Vignesh A Arasu; Dorota J Wisner; Sharon B Chang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 5.344