Ann Surg Treat Res.  2018 Sep;95(3):129-134. 10.4174/astr.2018.95.3.129.

Wound healing and postsurgical complications in breast cancer surgery: a comparison between PEAK PlasmaBlade and conventional electrosurgery – a preliminary report of a case series

• Chiappa C
• Fachinetti A
• Boeri C
• Arlant V
• Rausei S
• Dionigi G
• Rovera F

• KMID: 2419442
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2018.95.3.129

Abstract

PURPOSE
PEAK PlasmaBlade is a recent and distinctive type of electrosurgical device. Previous studies have already documented some meaningful advantages of this device over conventional electrosurgery. This study compared the use of PEAK PlasmaBlade to standard electrosurgery in mastectomy and breast conservative surgery. The purpose was to test the impact of PEAK PlasmaBlade on the wound-healing process and on postsurgical complications in breast cancer surgery.
METHODS
Sixty patients undergoing breast cancer surgery were enrolled. The PEAK PlasmaBlade was used for 20 of those. A standard electrosurgical device was used for the other 40 patients. The 2 groups were homogenous in age, body mass index, comorbidities and type of surgery. We recorded wound complications, serum drainage amount and duration of stay, blood loss, time of surgery, length of hospital stay, and total number of medications required.
RESULTS
The 2 groups were not significantly different in terms of patient characteristics. A statistically significant reduction in incidence of seroma was observed in the PEAK group: only 10% versus 37.5% of the patients in the conventional electrosurgery group developed this complication (Fisher exact test, P = 0.034).
CONCLUSION
Seroma is the most important wound complication in breast surgery. The research of new instruments that might reduce its incidence is desirable. In order to validate or deny the results of this study, it is necessary to enroll more subjects and to consider the impact of this device on axillary lymph node dissection.

Keyword

Breast neoplasms; Wound infection; Operative surgical procedures; Equipment and supplies; Intraoperative complications

MeSH Terms

Body Mass Index
Breast Neoplasms*
Breast*
Comorbidity
Drainage
Electrosurgery*
Equipment and Supplies
Humans
Incidence
Intraoperative Complications
Length of Stay
Lymph Node Excision
Mastectomy
Seroma
Surgical Procedures, Operative
Wound Healing*
Wound Infection
Wounds and Injuries*

Reference

1. Aird LN, Brown CJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical skin incisions. Am J Surg. 2012; 204:216–221.

2. Miller E, Paull DE, Morrissey K, Cortese A, Nowak E. Scalpel versus electrocautery in modified radical mastectomy. Am Surg. 1988; 54:284–286.

3. O'Connor JL, Bloom DA, William T. Bovie and electrosurgery. Surgery. 1996; 119:390–396.

4. Cho MJ, Yang JH, Yu YB, Park KS, Chung HW, So Y, et al. Validity of breast-specific gamma imaging for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 lesions on mammography and/or ultrasound. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2016; 90:194–200.

5. Loh SA, Carlson GA, Chang EI, Huang E, Palanker D, Gurtner GC. Comparative healing of surgical incisions created by the PEAK PlasmaBlade, conventional electrosurgery, and a scalpel. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009; 124:1849–1859.

6. Ruidiaz ME, Messmer D, Atmodjo DY, Vose JG, Huang EJ, Kummel AC, et al. Comparative healing of human cutaneous surgical incisions created by the PEAK PlasmaBlade, conventional electrosurgery, and a standard scalpel. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 128:104–111.

7. Chang EI, Carlson GA, Vose JG, Huang EJ, Yang GP. Comparative healing of rat fascia following incision with three surgical instruments. J Surg Res. 2011; 167:e47–e54.

8. Isik F. Discussion: comparative healing of human cutaneous surgical incisions created by the PEAK PlasmaBlade, conventional electrosurgery, and a standard scalpel. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 128:112–113.

9. Dogan L, Gulcelik MA, Yuksel M, Uyar O, Erdogan O, Reis E. The effect of plasmakinetic cautery on wound healing and complications in mastectomy. J Breast Cancer. 2013; 16:198–201.

10. Srivastava V, Basu S, Shukla VK. Seroma formation after breast cancer surgery: what we have learned in the last two decades. J Breast Cancer. 2012; 15:373–380.

11. Hashemi E, Kaviani A, Najafi M, Ebrahimi M, Hooshmand H, Montazeri A. Seroma formation after surgery for breast cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2004; 2:44.

12. Porter KA, O'Connor S, Rimm E, Lopez M. Electrocautery as a factor in seroma formation following mastectomy. Am J Surg. 1998; 176:8–11.

13. Yilmaz KB, Dogan L, Nalbant H, Akinci M, Karaman N, Ozaslan C, et al. Comparing scalpel, electrocautery and ultrasonic dissector effects: the impact on wound complications and pro-inflammatory cytokine levels in wound fluid from mastectomy patients. J Breast Cancer. 2011; 14:58–63.

14. Keogh GW, Doughty JC, McArdle CS, Cooke TG. Seroma formation related to electrocautery in breast surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Breast. 1998; 7:39–41.

15. Hoefer RA Jr, DuBois JJ, Ostrow LB, Silver LF. Wound complications following modified radical mastectomy: an analysis of perioperative factors. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1990; 90:47–53.

16. Madden JE, Edlich RF, Custer JR, Panek PH, Thul J, Wangensteen OH. Studies in the management of the contaminated wound IV Resistance to infection of surgical wounds made by knife, electrosurgery, and laser. Am J Surg. 1970; 119:222–224.