Comparison of two different types of oxidized regenerated cellulose for partial breast defects

Abstract Background A defect after partial mastectomy, sometimes, is hard to be filled with patient's own breast tissue. Two different types of oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC) for filling of partial defects in small-sized breasts were compared with respect to clinicopathologic factors and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of surgical research 2017-06, Vol.214, p.221-228
Main Authors: Lee, Jeeyeon, MD, Jung, Jin Hyang, MD, Kim, Wan Wook, MD, Yang, Jung Dug, MD, Lee, Jeong Woo, MD, Li, Junjie, MD, Park, Ho Yong, MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Breast
Breast Implantation - instrumentation
Breast Implants
Breast Neoplasms - surgery
Carcinoma
Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast - surgery
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating - surgery
Cellulose, Oxidized
Defect
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Mastectomy, Segmental
Middle Aged
Oxidized regenerated cellulose
Surgery
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background A defect after partial mastectomy, sometimes, is hard to be filled with patient's own breast tissue. Two different types of oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC) for filling of partial defects in small-sized breasts were compared with respect to clinicopathologic factors and outcomes. Methods A total of 45 patients with breast cancer underwent conventional partial mastectomy with insertion of an ORC filling material. The two filling materials used were a hemostasis-purposed ORC and adhesion barrier–purposed ORC. Clinical factors were compared between these two ORC materials. Both the surgeon and patient assessed the cosmetic outcomes using the Harvard/NSABP/RTOG Breast Cosmesis Grading Scale. Results Partial mastectomy with filling material insertion technique was not inferior to partial mastectomy–only technique in many clinical aspects. And most of the clinicopathologic factors showed no significant difference between the two groups. However, the mean operation time was significantly shorter in the hemostasis-purposed ORC group ( P  = 0.027). In addition, the infection rate was significantly higher in the adhesion barrier–purposed ORC group ( P  = 0.040). Conclusions Reconstructive surgery using a hemostasis-purposed ORC was associated with a shorter operation time and lower incidence of postoperative infection than that using an adhesion barrier–purposed ORC. However, both types of ORC were feasible as filling compounds for partial defects of the breast.
ISSN:0022-4804
1095-8673
DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2017.03.037