早期可触诊乳腺癌患者接受超声引导与触诊引导保守乳房手术的美容效果比较研究

A. M. Salama, Mohamed I. Abuelnasr, Enas M. Sweed, A. Nawar
{"title":"早期可触诊乳腺癌患者接受超声引导与触诊引导保守乳房手术的美容效果比较研究","authors":"A. M. Salama, Mohamed I. Abuelnasr, Enas M. Sweed, A. Nawar","doi":"10.4103/ejs.ejs_308_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n In conservative breast surgery, a larger volume of resected breast tissue is associated with a poorer cosmetic outcomes. Therefore, the introduction of ultrasonography in the excision of palpable breast cancer aims to minimize the excision of healthy tissue ensuring oncologically safe excision, and hence, a better cosmetic outcome compared with palpation-guided surgery (PGS).\n \n \n \n To compare ultrasound-guided surgery (UGS) for palpable breast cancer with PGS in terms of safety margin, re-excision rate, and cosmetic outcome.\n \n \n \n This is a prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted on 79 female patients with early palpable breast cancer. Patients were randomized to undergo either UGS or PGS. The mean distance between the tumor and the resection margin, re-excision rate, operative time, cosmetic outcome, and patient satisfaction were assessed.\n \n \n \n Data management and statistical analysis were done using SPSS, version 28. Quantitative data were assessed for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test and direct data visualization methods. According to normality, quantitative data were summarized as means and SDs. Categorical data were summarized as numbers and percentages. Quantitative data were compared between the studied groups using independent t test. Categorical data were compared using the χ\n 2 test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to predict good to excellent patient satisfaction. All statistical tests were two-sided. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant.\n \n \n \n The UGS group showed significantly higher excellent panel evaluation (48.7 vs. 22.5%, P=0.028) and patient satisfaction (61.5 vs. 30%). The UGS group demonstrated significantly longer operative time but significantly lower re-resection rate and distance from tumor to resection margin (0.62±0.16 vs. 1.72±0.35 cm, P<0.001). The predictors of the outcomes were tumor T stage (T2 stages associated with less satisfaction), tumor to resection margin distance (the more distance the less satisfaction), and ultrasound use.\n \n \n \n The UGS proves to be superior to PGS as it significantly decreases re-excision rates and improves overall cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction.\n","PeriodicalId":22550,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study on the cosmetic outcomes of ultrasound-guided versus palpation-guided conservative breast surgery in patients with early palpable breast cancer\",\"authors\":\"A. M. Salama, Mohamed I. Abuelnasr, Enas M. Sweed, A. Nawar\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ejs.ejs_308_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n In conservative breast surgery, a larger volume of resected breast tissue is associated with a poorer cosmetic outcomes. Therefore, the introduction of ultrasonography in the excision of palpable breast cancer aims to minimize the excision of healthy tissue ensuring oncologically safe excision, and hence, a better cosmetic outcome compared with palpation-guided surgery (PGS).\\n \\n \\n \\n To compare ultrasound-guided surgery (UGS) for palpable breast cancer with PGS in terms of safety margin, re-excision rate, and cosmetic outcome.\\n \\n \\n \\n This is a prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted on 79 female patients with early palpable breast cancer. Patients were randomized to undergo either UGS or PGS. The mean distance between the tumor and the resection margin, re-excision rate, operative time, cosmetic outcome, and patient satisfaction were assessed.\\n \\n \\n \\n Data management and statistical analysis were done using SPSS, version 28. Quantitative data were assessed for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test and direct data visualization methods. According to normality, quantitative data were summarized as means and SDs. Categorical data were summarized as numbers and percentages. Quantitative data were compared between the studied groups using independent t test. Categorical data were compared using the χ\\n 2 test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to predict good to excellent patient satisfaction. All statistical tests were two-sided. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant.\\n \\n \\n \\n The UGS group showed significantly higher excellent panel evaluation (48.7 vs. 22.5%, P=0.028) and patient satisfaction (61.5 vs. 30%). The UGS group demonstrated significantly longer operative time but significantly lower re-resection rate and distance from tumor to resection margin (0.62±0.16 vs. 1.72±0.35 cm, P<0.001). The predictors of the outcomes were tumor T stage (T2 stages associated with less satisfaction), tumor to resection margin distance (the more distance the less satisfaction), and ultrasound use.\\n \\n \\n \\n The UGS proves to be superior to PGS as it significantly decreases re-excision rates and improves overall cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":22550,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Egyptian Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Egyptian Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ejs.ejs_308_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ejs.ejs_308_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在保守的乳腺手术中,切除的乳腺组织体积越大,美容效果越差。因此,在可触诊乳腺癌的切除术中引入超声波技术,旨在最大限度地减少健康组织的切除,确保肿瘤安全切除,从而与触诊引导手术(PGS)相比获得更好的美容效果。 比较超声引导下乳腺癌手术(UGS)与触诊引导下乳腺癌手术(PGS)的安全系数、再次切除率和美容效果。 这是一项前瞻性、随机对照研究,对象是79名早期可触及乳腺癌女性患者。患者被随机分配接受 UGS 或 PGS 治疗。研究评估了肿瘤与切除边缘之间的平均距离、再次切除率、手术时间、美容效果和患者满意度。 数据管理和统计分析采用 SPSS 28 版本。采用 Shapiro-Wilk 检验和直接数据可视化方法对定量数据进行正态性评估。根据正态性,定量数据汇总为均值和标差。分类数据汇总为数字和百分比。研究组之间的定量数据比较采用独立 t 检验。分类数据采用 χ 2 检验进行比较。采用多变量逻辑回归分析预测良好至优秀患者满意度。所有统计检验均为双侧检验。P 值小于 0.05 为显著。 UGS 组的专家小组评价(48.7% 对 22.5%,P=0.028)和患者满意度(61.5% 对 30%)均明显高于 UGS 组。UGS 组的手术时间明显更长,但再次切除率和肿瘤到切除边缘的距离(0.62±0.16 对 1.72±0.35 厘米,P<0.001)明显更低。肿瘤T分期(T2分期的满意度较低)、肿瘤到切除边缘的距离(距离越远,满意度越低)和超声的使用是预测结果的因素。 事实证明,UGS优于PGS,因为它能显著降低再次切除率,提高整体美容效果和患者满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A comparative study on the cosmetic outcomes of ultrasound-guided versus palpation-guided conservative breast surgery in patients with early palpable breast cancer
In conservative breast surgery, a larger volume of resected breast tissue is associated with a poorer cosmetic outcomes. Therefore, the introduction of ultrasonography in the excision of palpable breast cancer aims to minimize the excision of healthy tissue ensuring oncologically safe excision, and hence, a better cosmetic outcome compared with palpation-guided surgery (PGS). To compare ultrasound-guided surgery (UGS) for palpable breast cancer with PGS in terms of safety margin, re-excision rate, and cosmetic outcome. This is a prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted on 79 female patients with early palpable breast cancer. Patients were randomized to undergo either UGS or PGS. The mean distance between the tumor and the resection margin, re-excision rate, operative time, cosmetic outcome, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Data management and statistical analysis were done using SPSS, version 28. Quantitative data were assessed for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test and direct data visualization methods. According to normality, quantitative data were summarized as means and SDs. Categorical data were summarized as numbers and percentages. Quantitative data were compared between the studied groups using independent t test. Categorical data were compared using the χ 2 test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to predict good to excellent patient satisfaction. All statistical tests were two-sided. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. The UGS group showed significantly higher excellent panel evaluation (48.7 vs. 22.5%, P=0.028) and patient satisfaction (61.5 vs. 30%). The UGS group demonstrated significantly longer operative time but significantly lower re-resection rate and distance from tumor to resection margin (0.62±0.16 vs. 1.72±0.35 cm, P<0.001). The predictors of the outcomes were tumor T stage (T2 stages associated with less satisfaction), tumor to resection margin distance (the more distance the less satisfaction), and ultrasound use. The UGS proves to be superior to PGS as it significantly decreases re-excision rates and improves overall cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Study of the value of core biopsy for establishing tissue diagnosis compared to excisional biopsy in enlarged cervical lymph nodes Fibrin glue versus sutures for mesh fixation in open repair of inguinal hernia Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation with mucopexy versus stapled hemorrhoidopexy in the management of grades 3 and 4 prolapsed hemorrhoids: A prospective randomized clinical study Solitary fibrous tumor of the pleura Correlating preoperative clinicopathological factors with skin and/ or nipple–areola complex tumor involvement in postmastectomy specimens
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1