These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Ultrasonographically guided vacuum-assisted excision for multiple breast masses: non-randomized comparison with conventional open excision.
    Author: Wang WJ, Wang Q, Cai QP, Zhang JQ.
    Journal: J Surg Oncol; 2009 Dec 15; 100(8):675-80. PubMed ID: 19731243.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and patient acceptance of ultrasonographically guided vacuum-assisted excision (UGVAE) for multiple breast masses. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients with low-risk multiple breast masses were non-randomized to either UGVAE or conventional open excision (COE). Clinical data were prospectively collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with age, side predilection, size and number of lesions. Forty-seven patients had UGVAE with 8-gauge probe and 15 patients with 11-gauge probe. All lesions were removed through same incision. Patients both in UGVAE and COE had complete removal of all imaged evidence of the masses by ultrasonography on initial follow-up. The majority of excised lesions were fibroadenomas and fibrocystic changes. The overall complication rate was 8.1% in UGVAE group and 5.6% in COE group. Patients treated with UGVAE were more highly satisfied with the cosmetic aspects as compared patients with COE. The postprocedure incomplete removal rate was slightly higher in UGVAE than in COE with 12-month follow-up, but the overall difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Both seem to be equally safe and effective, but UGVAE has certain advantages, that include minimal residual scar, excellent cosmesis outstanding, offering an useful alternative to the excision of low-risk multiple benign masses.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]