Use of Ultrasonic Shears in Patients with Breast Cancer Undergoing Axillary Dissection—A Pilot Study

Abstract

Patients with breast cancer and positive sentinel node biopsy usually require axillary dissection. Different instruments are used for axillary dissection like regular scalpel,monopolar cautery, bipolar cautery etc. All these instruments are having its advantages and disadvantages. Our dept did a pilot study to know the efficacy of ultrasonic shears over cautery for axillary dissection. Parameters considered were cumulative drain amount, number of days with the drain and number of lymphnodes harvested. Ultrasonic shear machine delivers precisely directed mechanical energy with an ultrasonic vibrating blade.A single device dissects, cuts, grasps, spot coagulates. This machine was used for doing axillary dissection in one group and regular cautery in the other group. Study period was from April 2011 to June 2011 at Dept of Surgical Oncology, St Johns Hospital, Bangalore. Nine people in the ultrasonic shear group and 11 people in the cautery group were included in the pilot study. No significant difference were noticed in the cumulative drain amount, number of days with the drain, and number of lymphnodes harvested in both the groups. Axillary dissection using ultrasonic shears do not show any significant difference in the cumulative drain amount, number of days with the drain, and number of lymphnodes harvested. These are the findings of the pilot study, further prospective randomized studies are required for substantiating the findings.

Advanced hemostasis in axillary lymph node dissection for locally advanced breast cancer: new technology devices compared in the prevention of seroma formation

“…Other Authors proposed LS to be the superior device in breast surgery and ALND, but also in these cases, the results are not conclusive. In fact, even if pro studies underlined how the LS utilization led to reduced intraoperative time [59][60][61], reduction of drainage output [60,62], conversely, several Authors showed no substantial difference when compared to EC [63][64][65][66], underlining also a not significant reduction of the cost of hospitalization [67].…”