Ahmet Türkan1, Gökhan Akkurt2, Metin Yalaza3, Gürkan Değirmencioğlu4, Mehmet Tolga Kafadar5, Sibel Yenidünya6, Aydın İnan7, Cenap Dener8. 1. Clinic of General Surgery, Elbistan State Hospital, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey. 2. Department of General Surgery, Keçiören Training And Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department of General Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Numune Training And Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 4. Clinic of General Surgery, Kırıkhan State Hospital, Hatay, Turkey. 5. Department of General Surgery, Mehmet Akif İnan Training And Research Hospital, Şanlıurfa, Turkey. 6. Clinic of Pathology, Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 7. Clinic of General Surgery, Umut Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 8. Clinic of General Surgery, Memorial Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared the differences in thermal damage at the surgical margin between monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure™ in breast cancer lumpectomy specimens and assessed the effect of these techniques on the evaluation of the surgical margins. METHODS: 30 patients scheduled for breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer were included in this study. During lumpectomy, each of the superior, inferior, lateral, and medial borders of the tumour was excised using one of the following: a scalpel, monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure technology. The surgical margins of frozen and paraffin-embedded tissue sections of the lumpectomy specimen were evaluated. Thermal damage was defined as the maximum depth of thermal damage (in mm) from the surgical margin, and the level was categorized as none, low (≤1 mm), or high (>1 mm). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure in terms of thermal damage. There was no thermal damage at the surgical margin in tissues dissected by scalpel. CONCLUSION: Thermal damage due to the excision method may cause false-negative and false-positive results in the surgical margin evaluation of lumpectomy specimens. More research is needed on the effects of different energy modalities on surgical margin evaluation in breast-conserving surgery.
BACKGROUND: We compared the differences in thermal damage at the surgical margin between monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure™ in breast cancer lumpectomy specimens and assessed the effect of these techniques on the evaluation of the surgical margins. METHODS: 30 patients scheduled for breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer were included in this study. During lumpectomy, each of the superior, inferior, lateral, and medial borders of the tumour was excised using one of the following: a scalpel, monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure technology. The surgical margins of frozen and paraffin-embedded tissue sections of the lumpectomy specimen were evaluated. Thermal damage was defined as the maximum depth of thermal damage (in mm) from the surgical margin, and the level was categorized as none, low (≤1 mm), or high (>1 mm). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery, and LigaSure in terms of thermal damage. There was no thermal damage at the surgical margin in tissues dissected by scalpel. CONCLUSION: Thermal damage due to the excision method may cause false-negative and false-positive results in the surgical margin evaluation of lumpectomy specimens. More research is needed on the effects of different energy modalities on surgical margin evaluation in breast-conserving surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast-conserving surgery; Electrosurgery; Lumpectomy; Thermal destruction
Authors: Sharon L Goldstein; Kristi L Harold; Alan Lentzner; Brent D Matthews; Kent W Kercher; Ronald F Sing; Broc Pratt; Edward H Lipford; B Todd Heniford Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Jaime Landman; Kurt Kerbl; Jamil Rehman; Cassio Andreoni; Peter A Humphrey; William Collyer; Ephrem Olweny; Chandru Sundaram; Ralph V Clayman Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sarah L Blair; Kari Thompson; Joseph Rococco; Vanessa Malcarne; Peter D Beitsch; David W Ollila Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-09-11 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: David McCready; Claire Holloway; Wendy Shelley; Nancy Down; Paula Robinson; Susan Sinclair; Douglas Mirsky Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Gregory R Lamberton; Ryan S Hsi; Daniel H Jin; Tekisha U Lindler; Forrest C Jellison; D Duane Baldwin Journal: J Endourol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Taras V Nechay; Svetlana M Titkova; Mikhail V Anurov; Elena V Mikhalchik; Kirill Y Melnikov-Makarchyk; Ekaterina A Ivanova; Alexander E Tyagunov; Abe Fingerhut; Alexander V Sazhin Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 2.102