Open Access

Axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer utilizing Harmonic Focus®

  • Katherine T Ostapoff1Email author,
  • David Euhus1,
  • Xian-Jin Xie2,
  • Madhu Rao1,
  • Amy Moldrem1 and
  • Roshni Rao1
World Journal of Surgical Oncology20119:90

https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-9-90

Received: 23 February 2011

Accepted: 15 August 2011

Published: 15 August 2011

Abstract

Background

For patients with axillary lymph node metastases from breast cancer, performance of a complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is the standard approach. Due to the rich lymphatic network in the axilla, it is necessary to carefully dissect and identify all lymphatic channels. Traditionally, these lymphatics are sealed with titanium clips or individually sutured. Recently, the Harmonic Focus®, a hand-held ultrasonic dissector, allows lymphatics to be sealed without the utilization of clips or ties. We hypothesize that ALND performed with the Harmonic Focus® will decrease operative time and reduce post-operative complications.

Methods

Retrospective review identified all patients who underwent ALND at a teaching hospital between January of 2005 and December of 2009. Patient demographics, presenting pathology, treatment course, operative time, days to drain removal, and surgical complications were recorded. Comparisons were made to a selected control group of patients who underwent similar surgical procedures along with an ALND performed utilizing hemostatic clips and electrocautery. A total of 41 patients were included in this study.

Results

Operative time was not improved with the use of ultrasonic dissection, however, there was a decrease in the total number of days that closed suction drainage was required, although this was not statistically significant. Complication rates were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

In this case-matched retrospective review, there were fewer required days of closed suction drainage when ALND was performed with ultrasonic dissection versus clips and electrocautery.

Background

Complete axillary staging is a critical component of the management of advanced breast cancer. Currently, for patients with no clinical evidence of axillary metastases, this information is obtained via sentinel node biopsy[1]. However, for patients with pathologically confirmed axillary metastases via positive sentinel node biopsy or percutaneous axillary biopsy complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) should be considered [2, 3]. Although the recent results of ACOSOG Z0011 trial suggest that patients with T1/T2 tumors undergoing breast conserving therapy do not require completion axillary dissection, patients with more advanced lesions, patients undergoing total mastectomy and patients with palpable nodes continue to require ALND for staging and to reduce the risk of axillary recurrence [4]. Complete axillary node dissection, although necessary, continues to carry the risks of complications such as seroma, chronic lymphatic leaks and lymphedema.

The axilla is filled with a rich lymphatic network that requires careful dissection to identify all channels. Traditionally, ALND has been performed using titanium clips and suture ligation along with bovie electrocautery[5]. Inadequate sealing of lymphatics can result in lymphatic leaks, infection, lymphedema and seromas[6]. The frequency of these complications can vary from 3-85% for seroma formation and 5-49% for lymphedema[612].

Recently, ultrasonic devices have been developed which allow for precise simultaneous cutting and hemostasis with minimal damage to surrounding tissues. It functions by denaturing collagen and elastin in tissue bundles, vessel walls, and lymphatics to form a coagulum[5]. Ultrasonic dissection provides the ability to seal vascular and lymphatic conduits with limited collateral damage.

The Harmonic Focus® is a handheld ultrasonic dissection device which allows lymphatics to be sealed without utilization of clips or ties. It has been available since October 2007 and is designed for open procedures. It has been used for dissection in surgery of the liver, gallbladder, thyroid and breast [1318]. It has been used in other lymphatic dissections in an attempt to reduce lymphatically related complications and has been shown to reduce operative times and reduce lymphatic spillage with similar rates of lymph node harvest for both modified lateral neck dissections and central neck dissections in thyroid cancer[16, 17]. The ultrasonic dissector has also been shown to reduce blood loss[12].

We hypothesize that ALND performed with Harmonic Focus® will decrease operative time and post-operative complications. Here we present our pilot study investigating the role of Harmonic Focus® as method to reduce axillary complications.

Methods

All women at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center undergoing ALND for confirmed breast cancer metastasis from January 1, 2005 to December 1, 2009 were eligible. Nearly 250 ALND's were performed during this time period. In 2007, ultrasonic dissection became the standard technique for ALND for 3 fellowship trained breast surgeons (RR, AM, DE) at this large, high volume, academic medical center. Twenty eight patients underwent ALND with the Harmonic® scalpel. Patient records were reviewed after IRB approval. These patients were then matched for number and type of procedures performed at the time of ALND with thirteen historical case controls by procedure performed by the same surgeons. All patients had pathologically confirmed axillary metastasis prior to ALND by either sentinel node biopsy or percutaneous axillary biopsy. Additionally, none of the patients in either group had breast reconstruction at the time of axillary dissection. Due to the surgeon preference for utilizing ultrasonic dissection once it became available, one to one matched pair analysis was not possible, however, the thirteen controls reviewed were performed by the same surgeons that performed the ultrasonic dissections to minimize surgeon specific variables.

Surgery

Skin incisions were made with a scalpel. If concurrent breast surgery occurred at the time of ALND, mastectomy was performed using either tumescent technique or bovie electrocautery. For axillary lymphadenectomy, all tissue inferior to the axillary vein, between the anterior border of the latissimus dorsi and medial to the border of the pectoralis minor was removed, thus including all level 1 and 2 nodes. The axilla was closed with 3.0 Vicryl interrupted suture and the skin was re-approximated with 4.0 Monocryl. At the time of surgery, 1 closed suction 19 french Jackson-Pratt drain was placed for patients with partial mastectomy and axillary dissection and 2 closed suction drains were placed for modified radical mastectomy patients. Drains were then removed on an outpatient basis when output was less than 30 cc/day for 2 consecutive days. Operative time was obtained by review of the anesthesia record and operating room nurse record. Patients were discharged routinely on postoperative day one with drains in place and self recorded the output after teaching.

Incidence of ipsilateral lymphedema, seroma and wound complications was noted upon review of follow-up appointments in any department (Surgery/Radiation Oncology, Medical Oncology or Emergency department). Categorical variables were analyzed using χ2 test, continuous variables were analyzed using ANOVA testing using SPSS 12.0. All endpoint analyses were analyzed using paired t-test. Multiple comparisons were not adjusted for.

Results

Over the 2 year period, 28 patients underwent axillary dissection using Harmonic scalpel®. Median follow-up time for both groups was 2.0 years. Patients in both groups had similar demographics as well as pathology and exposure to chemotherapy (Table 1). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in T stage between the control and ultrasonic dissection group (p = 0.222). Patients were matched to controls undergoing similar procedures by the same surgeons (Table 2).
Table 1

Patient Demographics

 

Control n = 13

Harmonic n = 28

P value

Age at Diagnosis

49.4

52

P = 0.415

BMI

25

31.1

P = 0.090

Ethnicity

  

P = 0.234

White

43% (n = 5)

21% (n = 6)

 

Black

21% (n = 3)

42% (n = 12)

 

Hispanic

29% (n = 4)

25% (n = 7)

 

Asian

0

11% (n = 3)

 

Other

7% (n = 1)

0

 

Tumor Size

3.4

3.91

P = 0.545

Clinical T Stage

  

P = 0.222

T1

N = 6

N = 6

 

T2

N = 2

N = 11

 

T3

N = 4

N = 6

 

T4

N = 1

N = 5

 

Histology

  

P = 0.378

Invasive ductal

11 (79%)

24 (86%)

 

Invasive lobular

1 (14%)

2 (7%)

 

Other

1 (7%)

0

 

Combination

0

2 (7%)

 

Type of Surgery

  

P = 0.566

PM

5

10

 

TM

8

18

 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

43% (n = 6)

32% (n = 9)

P = 0.614

Adjuvant chemotherapy

78% (n = 11)

79% (n = 22)

P = 0.601

BMI = body mass index PM = partial mastectomy, TM = total mastectomy

Table 2

Paired Surgical Procedures

 

Control (13)

Harmonic (28)

ALND alone

3

3

ALND +1 minor procedure *

1

5

ALND+PM+mediport

3

2

ALND+PM+SLND+mediport

1

3

MRM

1

7

MRM+ mediport

1

1

TM+SLNB+ALND

1

2

ALND+TM+ mediport+ contralateral SLNB+contralateral TM

2

5

*minor procedure included sentinel node biopsy, partial mastectomy, or mediport placement

ALND = axillary lymph node dissection, PM = partial mastectomy, SLNB = sentinel node biopsy, MRM = modified radical mastectomy, TM = total mastectomy

There were no differences in operative time, postoperative day 1 output or overall complications between the groups. There was a difference in days to drain removal (15.9 vs 12.4 days p = 0.07), however, this was not statistically significant. There was no difference in rates of seromas, wound complications or lymphedema between the two groups (Table 3).
Table 3

Endpoint Analysis

 

Control n = 13

Harmonic n = 28

P value

Operative Time *

208.5 min

209 min

P = 0.965

Output POD#1 *

134 cc

134.4 cc

P = 0.982

Days JP remained*

15. 9 days

12. 4 days

P = 0.07

Complications

4 (31%)

10 (36%)

P = 0.788

Seroma

2 (15.4%)

2 (7%)

P = 0.377

Wound infection

1 (8%)

4 (13%)

P = 0.486

Lymphedema

0 (0%)

4 (13%)

P = 0.170

* = paired t test

Discussion

Given the significant morbidity of ALND and the costs associated with their management, multiple studies have tried to identify risks factors as well as methods to reduce complications. Risk factors for seroma formation include MRM rather than PM[9], use of electrocautery for ALND[19], older age, patient weight, BMI[20] and drainage output at 48 hours (>50 cc/day)[21]. The role of axillary drainage has been a particular area of focus. Drains have been shown to reduce seroma rates compared to no drainage at all[2123]. Lower overall drain volume[24], days to drain removal[25, 26] and drainage less than 30-50 cc/day[27] prior to removal have all been shown to reduce seroma formation.

Given the observed residual dead space after ALND, attempts have been made to use hemostatic agents to reduce seroma formation. Use of thrombin spray failed to show any significant reduction in seroma formation or days required for closed suction drainage[22]. In a prospective randomized trial, the use of fibrin glue did not prevent or reduce seroma formation, aspiration volume, or complications[28]. Similarly, Berger found no difference in axillary drainage time, seroma formation, drain volume or local inflammation following use of a fibrin glue coated collagen patch[29]. Use of argon beam decreased operative blood loss, but not seroma formation[30].

Variances in surgical technique have also been explored. Classe JM et al attempted to reduce hospital stays by using axillary padding and 3 layered closure of the axilla rather than closed suction drainage, there were no differences in post-operative seroma rates (p = 0.9) or needle aspiration (p = 0.94)[31]. Wound closure by suturing skin flaps to the axillary space resulted in longer operative times, but did decrease the number of days until drain removal, as well as overall drain volume thereby resulted in reduced rates of seroma formation[32]. Additionally, several studies have evaluated the feasibility of axillary reverse mapping (ARM) a technique in which one can intraoperatively map the axilla [33, 34] In a small pilot study this was shown to prevent lymphedema[35]. Another newer technique is LYMPHA, which entails a lymphatic to venous anastomosis at the time of axillary dissection [36]. Lymphedema (as defined as increase in arm volume at serial follow-up measurements) in this study, at 18 month follow-up, was defined by a reduction in arm circumference. After ALND with LYMPHA, only 4.4% of patients developed lymphedema, versus 30% in patients who underwent ALND alone [36].

Investigators have also attempted to use ultrasonic dissectors (Ligasure® device) in a similar fashion to that presented here. Galatius et al found no differences in seroma incidence using the ultrasonic dissector, however, overall seroma rate was 66% and all drains were removed on post operative day 5 regardless of output[37]. Lumachi et al found there was no reduction in seroma rate using this method but did find on univariate analysis that risk factors for seroma formation included BMI, tumor size, number of involved nodes, total drainage before drain removal and time to drain removal[38].

This is the first investigation in an American institution, evaluating the use of the Harmonic Focus® to reduce complications for ALND. Adwani et al found decreased blood loss but no difference in days until drain removal, seroma formation or number of treatments for seromas, and were thus unable to show improved outcomes in England[18]. An Indian study similarly found reduced blood loss but also found reduced drainage volume and drainage days but found no difference in seroma formation or operative time (seroma rate 16% vs 22%)[39]. Manouras et al in Greece found no complications with the use of the Harmonic® scalpel for ALND in 60 patients at 3 years of follow-up[40]. Although impressive, only 22% of these patients had positive nodes, a factor which has been shown to increase the risk for axillary complications. Additionally, comparisons may be difficult as the majority of these patients had lower stage tumors (5% T3) than the present study[41].

We found fewer days to drain removal with the use of ultrasonic dissection. Although there was no difference in operative time, seroma formation, wound complications or lymphedema, reduced drainage time has been shown to reduce complication rates[20]. Larger studies with increased statistical power may be able to detect other differences. Many of our patients had bilateral procedures done at the time of ALND with and without immediate reconstruction, which increases expected operative times and increases the risk of complications.

The Harmonic® scalpel, in addition to reducing the days of drain placement, can also potentially reduce healthcare costs. Fewer days of drainage can reduce the number of clinic visits and potentially the need for additional studies. Also, there is a potential for reduced costs of equipment given that the current institutional cost of an automatic clip applier is $185, with the use of 2-3 per case and the Harmonic Focus® is approximately $400.

By allowing faster removal of closed suction drainage after ALND, Harmonic focus® may allow a more rapid transition to the initiation of systemic therapy as suggested by our pilot study.

Conclusions

In this retrospective, pilot study, the use of ultrasonic dissection resulted in trends suggesting decreased days of closed suction drainage when compared to traditional techniques utilizing clips and electrocautery. Ultrasonic dissection was not associated with decreased operative time or lower rates of post-operative complications. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these results.

Abbreviations

ALND: 

axillary lymph node dissection

PM: 

partial mastectomy

TM: 

total mastectomy

SLNB: 

sentinel lymph node biopsy

BMI: 

body mass index.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Victoria Warren, Fiemu Nwariaku MD and The David M. Crowley Foundation for their assistance with this study.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
(2)
Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

References

  1. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Brown AM, Harlow SP, Costantino JP, Ashikaga T, Weaver DL, Mamounas EP, Jalovec LM, Frazier TG, Noyes RD, Robidoux A, Scarth HM, Wolmark N: Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinical node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from NSABP B-32 randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010, 11 (10): 927-33. 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70207-2.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Brown AM, Harlow SP, Ashikaga T, Weaver DL, Miller BJ, Jalovec LM, Frazier TG, Noyes RD, Robidoux A, Scartch HM, Mammolito DM, McCready DR, Mamounas EP, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinical node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from NSABP B-32 randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007, 8 (10): 881-8. 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70278-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson RW, Allred DC, Anderson BO, Burstein HJ, Carter WB, Edge SB, Erban JK, Farrar WB, Goldstein LJ, Gradishar WJ, Hayes DF, Hudis CA, Jahanzeb M, Kiel K, Ljung BM, Marcom PK, Mayer IA, McCormick B, Nabell LM, Pierce LJ, Reed EC, Smith ML, Somlo G, Theriault RL, Topham NS, Ward JH, Winer EP, Wolff AC, NCCN Breast Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines Panel: Breast cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009, 7 (2): 122-92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, Leitch AM, Saha S, McCall LM, Morrow M: Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011, 305 (6): 569-75. 10.1001/jama.2011.90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brill AI: Bipolar electrosurgery: convention and innovation. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2008, 51: 153-8. 10.1097/GRF.0b013e318161e7ee.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Vitug AF, Newman LA: Complications in breast surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2007, 87: 431-51. 10.1016/j.suc.2007.01.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Coveney EC, O'Dwyer PJ, Geraghty JG, O'Higgins NJ: Effect of closing dead space on seroma formation after mastectomy-a prospective randomized clinical trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1993, 19: 143-146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Anand R, Skinner R, Dennison G, Pain JA: A prospective randomized trial of two treatments for wound seroma after breast surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2002, 28: 483-487.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Gonzalez EA, Saltzstein EC, Riedner CS, Nelson BK: Seroma formation following breast cancer surgery. Breast J. 2003, 5: 385-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Woodworth PA, McBoyle MF, Helmer SD, Beamer RL: Seroma formation after breast cancer surgery: incidence and predicting factors. Am Surg. 2000, 66: 444-50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg JS, Wiechmann LI, Riedel ER, Morrow M, Van Zee KJ: Morbidity of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: the relationship between the number of excised lymph nodes and lymphedema. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010, 17: 3278-86. 10.1245/s10434-010-1155-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Petrek JA, Senie RT, Peters M, Rosen PP: Lymphedema in a cohort of breast carcinoma survivors after 20 years after diagnosis. Cancer. 2001, 92 (6): 1368-1377. 10.1002/1097-0142(20010915)92:6<1368::AID-CNCR1459>3.0.CO;2-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheang T, Hanna SS, Wright FC, Law CH: Use of collagen-sealing device in hepatic resection: a comparative analysis to standard resection technique. HPB(Oxford). 2006, 8: 194-9.Google Scholar
  14. Gelmini R, Franzoni C, Zona S, Andreotti A, Saviano M: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with harmonic scalpel. JSLS. 2010, 14 (1): 14-9. 10.4293/108680810X12674612014301.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kandil T, El Nakeeb A, El Hefnawy E: Comparative study between clipless laparoscopic cholecystectomy by harmonic scalpel versus conventional method: a prospective randomized study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010, 14: 323-8. 10.1007/s11605-009-1039-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Koh YW, Park JH, Lee SW, Choi EC: The harmonic scalpel technique without supplementary ligation in total thyroidectomy with central neck dissection. Ann Surg. 2008, 247: 945-49. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31816bcd61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Miccoli P, Materazzi G, Fregoli L, Panicucci E, Kunz-Martinez W, Berti P: Modified lateral neck lymphadenectomy: prospective randomized study comparing harmonic scalpel with clamp-and-tie technique. Otolaryngology. 2009, 140: 61-4.Google Scholar
  18. Adwani A, Ebbs SR: Ultracision reduces acute blood loss but not seroma formation after mastectomy and axillary dissection: a pilot study. Int J Clin Pract. 2006, 60: 562-564. 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2006.00689.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Porter K, O'Connor S, Rimm E, Lopez M: Electrocautery as a factor in seroma formation following mastectomy. Am J Surg. 1998, 176: 8-14. 10.1016/S0002-9610(98)00093-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Unalp HR, Onal MA: Analysis of risk factors affecting the development of seromas following breast cancer surgeries: seromas following breast cancer surgeries. Breast J. 2007, 13: 588-92. 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2007.00509.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Burak WE, Goodman PS, Young DC, Farrar WB: Seroma formation following axillary dissection for breast cancer: risk factors and lack of influence of bovine thrombin. J Surg Onc. 1997, 64: 27-31. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199701)64:1<27::AID-JSO6>3.0.CO;2-R.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Divino CM, Kuerer HM, Tartter PI: Drains prevent seromas following lumpectomy with axillary dissection. Breast J. 2000, 6: 31-33. 10.1046/j.1524-4741.2000.99037.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Cameron AE, Ebbs SR, Wylie F, Baum M: Suction drainage of the axilla: a prospective randomized trial. Br J Surg. 1988, 75: 1211-10.1002/bjs.1800751222.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Soon PS, Clark J, Magarey CJ: Seroma formation after axillary lymphadenectomy with and without the use of drains. Breast. 2005, 14: 103-7. 10.1016/j.breast.2004.09.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Barwell J, Campbell L, Watkins RM, Teasdale C: How long should suction drains stay in after breast surgery with axillary dissection?. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1997, 79: 435-7.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kopelman D, Klemm O, Bahous H, Klein R, Krausz M, Hashmonai M: Postoperative suction drainage of the axilla: for how long? prospective randomized trial. Eur J Surg. 1999, 2: 117-20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Vinton AL, Traverso LW, Jolly PC: Wound complications after modified radical masectomy compared with tylectomy with axillary lymph node dissection. Am J Surg. 1991, 161: 584-8. 10.1016/0002-9610(91)90905-S.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Cipolla C, Fricano S, Vieni S, Graceffa G, Licari G, Torcivia A, Latteri MA: Does the use of fibrin glue prevent seroma formation after axillary lymphadenectomy for breast cancer? A prospective randomized trial in 159 patients. J Surg Onc. 2010, 101: 600-3. 10.1002/jso.21531.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Berger A, Tempfer C, Hartmann B, Kornprat P, Rossmann A, Neuwirth G, Tulusan A, Kubista E: Sealing of postoperative axillary leakage after axillary lymphadenectomy using fibrin glue coated collagen patch: a prospective randomized study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001, 67 (1): 9-14. 10.1023/A:1010671209279.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kerin MJ, O'Hanlon DM, Kenny P, Kent PJ, Given HF: Argon-enhanced cutting and coagulation confers advantages over conventional electrocautery for mastectomy. Eur J Surg Onc. 1996, 22: 571-3. 10.1016/S0748-7983(96)92190-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Classe JM, Berchery D, Campion L, Pioud R, Dravet F, Robard S: Randomized clinical trial comparing axillary padding with closed suction drainage for the axillary wound after lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2006, 93: 820-4. 10.1002/bjs.5433.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Gong Y, Xu J, Shao J, Cheng H, Wu X, Zhao D, Xiong B: Prevention of seroma formation after masectomy and axillary dissection by lymph vessel ligation and dead space closure: a randomized trial. Am J Surg. 2010, 200: 352-56. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.10.013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Noguchi M, Yokoi M, Nakano Y: Axillary reverse mapping with indocyanine fluorescence imaging in patients with breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2010, 101 (3): 217-21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Boneti C, Korourian S, Bland K, Cox K, Adkins LL, Henry-Tillman RS, Klimberg VS: Axillary reverse mapping: mapping and preserving arm lymphatics may be important in preventing lymphedema during sentinel lymph node biopsy. J Am Coll Surg. 2008, 206 (5): 1038-42. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.12.022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Boneti C, Korourian S, Diaz Z, Santiago C, Mumford S, Adkins L, Klimberg VS: Scientific Impact Award: Axillary reverse mapping (ARM) to identify and protect lymphatics draining the arm during axillary lymphadenectomy. Am J Surg. 2009, 198 (4): 482-7. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.06.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Boccardo FM, Casabona F, Friedman D, Puglisi M, De Cian F, Ansaldi F, Campisi C: Surgical Prevention of Arm Lymphedema After Breast Cancer Treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011Google Scholar
  37. Galatius H, Okholm M, Hoffmann J: Masectomy using ultrasonic dissection: effect on seroma formation. Breast. 2003, 12: 338-341. 10.1016/S0960-9776(03)00110-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lumachi F, Brandes AA, Burelli P, Basso SM, Iacobone M, Ermani M: Seroma prevention following axillary dissection in patients with breast cancer by using ultrasound scissors: a prospective clinical study. EJSO. 2004, 30: 526-30. 10.1016/j.ejso.2004.03.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Deo SV, Shukla NK, Asthana S, Niranjan B, Srinivas G: A comparative study of modified radical masectomy using harmonic scalpel and electrocautery. Singapore Med J. 2002, 43: 226-8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Manouras A, Markogiannakis H, Genetzakis M, Filippakis GM, Lagoudianakis EE, Kafiri G, filis K, Zografos GC: Modified radical mastectomy with axillary dissection using the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system. Arch Surg. 2008, 6: 575-79.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. McLaughlin SA, Wright MJ, Morris KT, Giron GL, Sampson MR, Brockway JP, Hurley KE, Riedel ER, Van Zee KJ: Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel node biopsy or axillary dissection: objective measurements. JCO. 2008, 32: 5213-5219.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Ostapoff et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement