A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3145
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Switching to Tumescent Dissection in Mastectomy. | LitMetric

Switching to Tumescent Dissection in Mastectomy.

Breast J

Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Published: February 2025

Tumescent dissection (TUM) combines the use of crystalloid, local anesthetic, and epinephrine to create a bloodless plane to raise skin flaps. We aim to compare outcomes of TUM versus standard electrocautery dissection in mastectomies with and without reconstruction. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent mastectomy by a single surgeon between January 2016 and October 2020 utilizing the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was complication rate, and the secondary outcome was operative time. Chi-squared analysis and two-sample -tests were used to examine outcomes. Among 242 patients, 141 patients underwent TUM and 101 patients underwent electrocautery. 44.68% of TUM patients experienced one or more complications compared to 59.41% of electrocautery patients (=0.024). There were fewer cases of wound healing complications in the TUM group with reconstruction compared to the electrocautery group with reconstruction (6.1% vs. 21%, =0.005). Infection rate was higher in the TUM group with reconstruction compared to the electrocautery group with reconstruction (14.3% vs. 3.2%, =0.023). There was no significant difference in rates of hematoma, seroma, skin flap necrosis, nipple areolar complex necrosis, or re-exploration by dissection technique. The mean operative time was shorter with TUM compared to electrocautery (216.09 min vs. 250.16 min, =0.016). TUM yields comparable results with decreased overall complication rates compared to electrocautery dissection. Electrocautery thermal effect may account for skin-related complications. Additionally, tumescent mastectomies have shorter length of operative time which could reduce the risk of complications associated with increased time under general anesthesia.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11824300PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/tbj/7634729DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

group reconstruction
16
compared electrocautery
16
patients underwent
12
operative time
12
tumescent dissection
8
tum
8
electrocautery
8
electrocautery dissection
8
tum group
8
reconstruction compared
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!