Affiliation:
1. Medsi Group
2. L.D. Roman Leningrad Regional Clinical Oncological Dispensary
3. N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Oncology Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Abstract
Introduction. Breast cancer is the most common cancer. Success in early diagnostic and system treatment is achieved. All the same mastectomy with reconstruction is the best option for some patients. Seroma is common complication after reconstructive plastic surgery.Aim. To analyze efficiency of using fibrin sealant criofit at donor zone after autologous breast reconstruction in decreasing seroma incidences.Materials and methods. This is randomised controlled clinical trial of fibrin sealant criofit effect on assessing of seroma incidences, timing of drain removal at donor zone after autologous breast reconstruction in comparison with control group. Surgical technic, drains removal criteria and patients characteristics were identical in both groups.Results. Average drain fluid volume on the first day (150.9 ± 40.7 ml vs 190.6 ± 60.7 ml; p <0.001) and second day (152.6 ± 53.3 ml vs 184.9 ± 90.3 ml; p = 0.04) after surgery was significantly lower in experimental group. Average number of days of drainage in criofit group was significantly lower (6.3 ± 1.1 days vs 7.4 ± 2.1 days; p = 0.01). Seroma incidences in experimental group was lower in comparison with control group (10 % vs 23 %). It was statistically significant.Conclusion. We aimed to asses the efficiency of fibrin sealant criofit at donor zone after autologous breast reconstruction. Criofit decrese the volume of serous draining in first days after surgery, number of days of drainage and seroma incidences significantly. But more powerful clinical trials are needed. Study limitations are small sample, changes in surgery team, small observation period.
Publisher
Publishing House ABV Press
Reference18 articles.
1. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(3):209–49. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660
2. Sostoyanie onkologicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniyu Rossii v 2020 godu. Pod red. A.D. Kaprina, V.V. Starinskogo, A.O. Shakhzadovoi. M.: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena – filial FGBU «NMITs radiologii» Minzdrava Rossii, 2021. S. 239. The state of oncological care to the population of Russia in 2020. Ed. by A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinsky, A.O. Shakhzadova. Moscow: P.A. Herzen Moscow State Medical Research Institute – branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “NMIC of Radiology” of the Ministry of Health of Russia, 2021. P. 239. (In Russ.).
3. Fisher B., Anderson S., Bryant J. et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347(16):1233–41. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152
4. Veronesi U., Cascinelli N., Mariani L. et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347(16):1227–32. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989
5. Macmillan R.D., McCulley S.J. Oncoplastic breast surgery: what, when and for whom? Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2016;8:112–7. DOI: 10.1007/s12609-016-0212-9