A Prospective Randomised Controlled Study Comparing Ultrasonic Dissector with Electrocautery for Axillary Dissection in Patients of Carcinoma Breast

[...]this has been an area of intense research with the aim to reduce post-operative serous discharge by variety of techniques. Authors have hypothesized that the use of ultrasonic dissector for axillary dissection in MRM results in better surgical outcomes as it causes less thermal damage to surrou...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Malaysian journal of medical sciences Vol. 28; no. 1; pp. 97 - 104
Main Authors Deori, Ananya, Gupta, Nikhil, Gupta, Arun Kumar, Yelamanchi, Raghav, Agrawal, Himanshu, Durga, C K
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Kelantan Universiti Sains Malaysia Press 01.01.2021
Subjects
Body mass index
Breast cancer
Chemotherapy
Dissection
Females
Homeostasis
Mastectomy
Metastasis
Pain
Postoperative period
Surgery
Surgical outcomes
United States > US
India
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:[...]this has been an area of intense research with the aim to reduce post-operative serous discharge by variety of techniques. Authors have hypothesized that the use of ultrasonic dissector for axillary dissection in MRM results in better surgical outcomes as it causes less thermal damage to surrounding tissues and smoke production with good vessel sealing property. Exclusion Criteria Patients with metastatic breast carcinoma, patients undergoing breast conservation surgery or immediate breast reconstruction procedure, pregnant females and those with prior history of axillary surgeries were excluded from the study. The outcomes studied were: i) Operative time for axillary dissection (in minutes) ii) Intra-operative blood loss during axillary dissection iii) Post-operative pain score using VAS iv) Axillary drain volume (in mL) v) Duration of axillary drain (in days) vi) Post-operative complications like seroma formation, wound infection, hematoma and flap necrosis Statistical Analysis Total sample size was 70 patients calculated with a margin error of 5% and were distributed equally into two groups.
ISSN:1394-195X
2180-4303
DOI:10.2l3l5/mjms202l.28.l.l2