BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Seroma is a common complication after axillary dissection in women with node-positive breast cancer. We aim to determine the effect of Cyanoacrylate on reducing seroma formation in patients undergoing axillary dissection. This a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: This is a single-center, randomized, single-blinded, and two-arm parallel study. Women with node-positive breast cancer eligible for axillary dissection were enrolled. Patients with a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 35 kg/m2, those who underwent immediate breast reconstruction, and/or received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio, and were stratified according to their age, BMI, tumor size, and operation type. The primary endpoint was the total seroma volume (the total drained volume and the total aspirated volume after drain removal). Data presented as mean and range when applicable. RESULTS: 111 patients were randomized (Cyanoacrylate 57; control 54). 105 patients were analyzed. Sixty-nine patients underwent breast conserving surgery, and 36 underwent modified radical mastectomy. There was no difference in the total seroma volume between the Cyanoacrylate vs. control arms (1,304 (60-4,950) vs. 1,446 (100-5,223) ml, p=0.458). Wound infection, flap necrosis, number of manual aspirates, and hematoma formation were not statistically different between the two groups. Time to drain removal was shorter in the Cyanoacrylate arm (11.04(3-23) vs. 13.84(3-37) days, p=0.015). The use of Cyanoacrylate was not cost effective ($586.93 (550-748) vs. $29.63 (0-198), p<0.001). Higher seroma volume was correlated with modified radical mastectomy, older age, and BMI more than 30 kg/m2. CONCLUSION: Cyanoacrylate did not reduce seroma formation and its use was not cost effective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02141373.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Seroma is a common complication after axillary dissection in women with node-positive breast cancer. We aim to determine the effect of Cyanoacrylate on reducing seroma formation in patients undergoing axillary dissection. This a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: This is a single-center, randomized, single-blinded, and two-arm parallel study. Women with node-positive breast cancer eligible for axillary dissection were enrolled. Patients with a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 35 kg/m2, those who underwent immediate breast reconstruction, and/or received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio, and were stratified according to their age, BMI, tumor size, and operation type. The primary endpoint was the total seroma volume (the total drained volume and the total aspirated volume after drain removal). Data presented as mean and range when applicable. RESULTS: 111 patients were randomized (Cyanoacrylate 57; control 54). 105 patients were analyzed. Sixty-nine patients underwent breast conserving surgery, and 36 underwent modified radical mastectomy. There was no difference in the total seroma volume between the Cyanoacrylate vs. control arms (1,304 (60-4,950) vs. 1,446 (100-5,223) ml, p=0.458). Wound infection, flap necrosis, number of manual aspirates, and hematoma formation were not statistically different between the two groups. Time to drain removal was shorter in the Cyanoacrylate arm (11.04(3-23) vs. 13.84(3-37) days, p=0.015). The use of Cyanoacrylate was not cost effective ($586.93 (550-748) vs. $29.63 (0-198), p<0.001). Higher seroma volume was correlated with modified radical mastectomy, older age, and BMI more than 30 kg/m2. CONCLUSION: Cyanoacrylate did not reduce seroma formation and its use was not cost effective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02141373.
Authors: Walter Paul Weber; Christoph Tausch; Stefanie Hayoz; Mathias Konrad Fehr; Karin Ribi; Hanne Hawle; Judith Eva Lupatsch; Klazien Matter-Walstra; Federica Chiesa; Konstantin Johannes Dedes; Gilles Berclaz; Loic Lelièvre; Thomas Hess; Uwe Güth; Verena Pioch; Dimitri Sarlos; Cornelia Leo; Claudia Canonica; Natalie Gabriel; Jasmin Zeindler; Estelle Cassoly; Christiane Andrieu; Savas Deniz Soysal; Thomas Ruhstaller; Peter Martin Fehr; Michael Knauer Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Laura C Randolph; Julie Barone; Juan Angelats; Diane V Dado; Darl K Vandevender; Margo Shoup Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Mila Donker; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Marieke E Straver; Philip Meijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Robert E Mansel; Luigi Cataliotti; A Helen Westenberg; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Lorenzo Orzalesi; Willem H Bouma; Huub C J van der Mijle; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Sanne C Veltkamp; Leen Slaets; Nicole J Duez; Peter W de Graaf; Thijs van Dalen; Andreas Marinelli; Herman Rijna; Marko Snoj; Nigel J Bundred; Jos W S Merkus; Yazid Belkacemi; Patrick Petignat; Dominic A X Schinagl; Corneel Coens; Carlo G M Messina; Jan Bogaerts; Emiel J T Rutgers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Seyed Mohammad Vahid Hosseini; Ali Bahador; Hamid Reza Foroutan; Babak Sabet; Bita Geramizadeh; Mohammad Zarenezhad Journal: Iran J Med Sci Date: 2011-03