Wolfram Malter1, Johannes Holtschmidt1, Fabinshy Thangarajah1, Peter Mallmann1, Barbara Krug2, Mathias Warm1,3, Christian Eichler4. 1. University of Cologne, Faculty of Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cologne, Germany. 2. University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Radiology, Cologne, Germany. 3. Breast Cancer Center, Municipal Hospital Holweide, Cologne, Germany. 4. University of Cologne, Faculty of Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cologne, Germany ceichler@gmail.com christian.eichler@uk-koeln.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The problem of adequately marking any given lesion within a breast surgical site is commonly solved by introducing a titanium clip. However, clip dislocation and/or stereotactic hook-wire dislocation are common problems. An ideal solution would be a clip that can be easily found without the use of stereotactic intervention. This work reviews the available data on radiofrequency identification devices (RFID) in breast surgery, reports initial experience data in Europe and discusses surgical pitfalls, advantages and disadvantages. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study represents a single center, consecutively recruited, initiation trial with subsequent surgeon questionnaire for the first institution in Europe to report Faxitron LOCalizer™ chip data. Four patients with non-palpable tumors were marked with the system and were correlated via mammography, pre- and intra-operative ultrasound and pathology. Data were then compared to available literature and a literature review was added. RESULTS: The four patients marked with this RFID system, displayed a 100% success location rate at a 0% complication rate. Surgeons evaluated the new system as being safe to use and only slightly more difficult to place compared to a standard clip. A significant improvement in ultrasound localization and intraoperative localization was also reported for the LOCalizer™ system when compared to a standard titanium clip. CONCLUSION: This trial added a small number of consecutively recruited patients to an existing number of available data, resulting in a total of 121 evaluated and reviewed Faxitron LOCalizer™ marked non-palpable in-breast lesions worldwide. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: The problem of adequately marking any given lesion within a breast surgical site is commonly solved by introducing a titanium clip. However, clip dislocation and/or stereotactic hook-wire dislocation are common problems. An ideal solution would be a clip that can be easily found without the use of stereotactic intervention. This work reviews the available data on radiofrequency identification devices (RFID) in breast surgery, reports initial experience data in Europe and discusses surgical pitfalls, advantages and disadvantages. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study represents a single center, consecutively recruited, initiation trial with subsequent surgeon questionnaire for the first institution in Europe to report Faxitron LOCalizer™ chip data. Four patients with non-palpable tumors were marked with the system and were correlated via mammography, pre- and intra-operative ultrasound and pathology. Data were then compared to available literature and a literature review was added. RESULTS: The four patients marked with this RFID system, displayed a 100% success location rate at a 0% complication rate. Surgeons evaluated the new system as being safe to use and only slightly more difficult to place compared to a standard clip. A significant improvement in ultrasound localization and intraoperative localization was also reported for the LOCalizer™ system when compared to a standard titanium clip. CONCLUSION: This trial added a small number of consecutively recruited patients to an existing number of available data, resulting in a total of 121 evaluated and reviewed Faxitron LOCalizer™ marked non-palpable in-breast lesions worldwide. Copyright
Authors: Christopher C Rupp; Mary J Kagarise; Stella M Nelson; Allison M Deal; Susan Phillips; Janet Chadwick; Tamara Petty; Anthony A Meyer; Hong Jin Kim Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Stefano Tardioli; Laura Ballesio; Silvia Gigli; Francesca DI Pastena; Valerio D'Orazi; Guglielmo Giraldi; Massimo Monti; Maria Ida Amabile; Vittorio Pasta Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Maggie L DiNome; Amy M Kusske; Deanna J Attai; Cheryce P Fischer; Anne C Hoyt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Wolfram Malter; Christian Eichler; Bettina Hanstein; Peter Mallmann; Johannes Holtschmidt Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Patrik Pöschke; Julius Emons; Felix Heindl; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Sebastian Jud; Ramona Erber; Carolin C Hack; Caroline Preuss; Annika Behrens Journal: In Vivo Date: 2022 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Umar Wazir; Salim Tayeh; Nicholas Perry; Michael Michell; Anmol Malhotra; Kefah Mokbel Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Bianca M den Dekker; Anke Christenhusz; Thijs van Dalen; Lisa M Jongen; Margreet C van der Schaaf; Anneriet E Dassen; Ruud M Pijnappel Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 4.430