Ultrasonic dissection versus electrocautery for immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction

• Main Authors: Dongeun Lee, Bok Ki Jung, Tai Suk Roh, Young Seok Kim
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons 2020-01-01
• Series: Archives of Plastic Surgery
• Subjects: breast; mammaplasty; breast implants; electrocoagulation; high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation
• Online Access: http://www.e-aps.org/upload/pdf/aps-2019-00759.pdf

Background Ultrasonic dissection devices cause less thermal damage to the surrounding tissue than monopolar electrosurgical devices. We compared the effects of using an ultrasonic dissection device or an electrocautery device during prosthetic breast reconstruction on seroma development and short-term postoperative complications. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent implant-based reconstruction following mastectomy between March 2017 and September 2018. Mastectomy was performed by general surgeons and reconstruction by plastic surgeons. From March 2017 to January 2018, a monopolar electrosurgical device was used, and an ultrasonic dissection device was used thereafter. The other surgical methods were the same in both groups. Results The incidence of seroma was lower in the ultrasonic dissection device group than in the electrocautery group (11 [17.2%] vs. 18 [31.0%]; P=0.090). The duration of surgery, total drainage volume, duration of drainage, overall complication rate, surgical site infection rate, and flap necrosis rate were comparable between the groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that the risk of seroma development was significantly lower in the ultrasonic dissection device group than in the electrocautery group (odds ratio for electrocautery, 3.252; 95% confidence interval, 1.242–8.516; P=0.016). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the incidence of seroma can be reduced slightly by using an ultrasonic dissection device for prosthesis-based breast reconstruction. However, further randomized controlled studies are required to verify our results and to assess the cost-effectiveness of this technique.