Oncoplastic technique in breast conservative surgery for locally advanced breast cancer

Expanded indications for breast-conserving surgery with oncoplastic approaches compared to conventional approaches: a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study

Background

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBS) is the evolution of conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS); however, data from studies comparing patients who received two surgical procedures are limited. A comparison of differences in terms of the patient characteristics, tumor-nipple distance, volume of resected breast tissue, tumor volume and postoperative breast appearance between patients undergoing OPBS and CBCS was carried out in this study, enhancing the evidence base for OPBS by widening indications and improving patient satisfaction.

Methods

From January 2020 to April 2022, the Breast Center of West China Hospital conducted a retrospective comparative study involving 106 patients. Preoperative characteristics of patients were recorded, and the tumor-nipple distance, the volume of resected breast tissue, tumor volume and patient-reported esthetic outcomes measured by the Harris cosmetic scale were compared between patients who underwent OPBS and CBCS.

Results

Each group had a median follow-up time of 2 months, ranging from 1 week to 6 months. The tumor-nipple distance was significantly shorter in patients receiving OPBS than in those receiving CBCS (2.98±1.42 vs. 3.85±1.78 cm, P=0.006). The rate of positive margin evaluated by intraoperative frozen section biopsy was significantly lower in OPBS group than in CBCS group (2/43, 4.65% vs. 11/63, 17.46%; P=0.048). The maximum diameter of resected tissue (7.80±2.29 vs. 6.75±1.87 cm, P=0.011) and volume of resected tissue (74.20±42.77 vs. 45.52±30.99 cm3, P<0.001) were significantly larger with OPBS. The tumor size, tumor volume (either clinically measured by ultrasound or pathologically measured), tumor location, and reoperation rate due to positive margins did not differ significantly between groups. Moreover, insignificant differences existed regarding patient satisfaction between two groups (87.30% vs. 81.40%).

Conclusions

The OPBS strategy allowed extensive resections and expanded indications with equivalent cosmetic satisfaction and favorable oncological safety.

Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of Harmonic Focus versus monopolar electrocautery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast conservative surgery: a comparative study

Background

Surgical devices are commonly used during breast conservative surgery (BCS) to provide better hemostasis. The Harmonic scalpel has recently gained momentum as an effective tool for intraoperative bleeding reduction. This comparative study was designed to determine the efficacy of Harmonic Focus in reducing postoperative complications of BCS after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CTH) compared to the conventional method using monopolar diathermy.

Results

A prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study was conducted on patients scheduled to undergo BCS with axillary dissection after neoadjuvant CTH. Patients in the Harmonic Focus group had significantly shorter operative times than the monopolar electrocautery group (101.32 ± 27.3 vs. 139.3 ± 31.9 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Besides, blood loss was significantly lower in the Harmonic Focus group (117.14 ± 35.6 vs. 187 ± 49.8 mL, respectively; p < 0.001). Postoperatively, patients in the Harmonic Focus group had a significantly lower volume of chest wall drain (p < 0.001) and shorter time until drain removal (p < 0.001). Likewise, patients in the Harmonic Focus group had a significantly lower volume of axillary drain and shorter time until drain removal than monopolar electrocautery (p < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was comparable between both groups (p = 0.128).

Conclusions

This study confirmed the superiority of Harmonic Focus compared to monopolar electrocautery among patients receiving neoadjuvant CTH before BCS.