-
Annals of Surgical Oncology Oct 2021Melanoma is the most lethal skin cancer. Excision biopsy is generally recommended for clinically suspicious pigmented lesions; however, a proportion of cutaneous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Melanoma is the most lethal skin cancer. Excision biopsy is generally recommended for clinically suspicious pigmented lesions; however, a proportion of cutaneous melanomas are diagnosed by shave biopsy. A systematic review was undertaken to investigate the impact of shave biopsy on tumor staging, treatment recommendations, and prognosis.
METHODOLOGY
The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles. Data on deep margin status on shave biopsy, tumor upstaging, and additional treatments on wide local excision (WLE), disease recurrence, and survival effect were analyzed across studies.
RESULTS
Fourteen articles from 2010 to 2020 were included. In total, 3713 patients had melanoma diagnosed on shave biopsy. Meta-analysis revealed a positive deep margin in 42.9% of shave biopsies. Following WLE, change in tumor stage was reported in 7.7% of patients. Additional treatment was recommended for 2.3% of patients in the form of either further WLE and/or sentinel lymph node biopsy. There was high heterogeneity across studies in all outcomes. Four studies reported survival, while no studies found any significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between shave biopsy and other biopsy modalities.
CONCLUSIONS
Just over 40% of melanomas diagnosed on shave biopsy report a positive deep margin; however, this translated into a change in tumor stage or treatment recommendations in relatively few patients (7.7% and 2.3%, respectively), with no impact on local recurrence or survival among the studies analyzed.
Topics: Biopsy; Humans; Melanoma; Neoplasm Staging; Retrospective Studies; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy; Skin; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 33782802
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-09866-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Burn injuries are the fourth most common traumatic injury, causing an estimated 180,000 deaths annually worldwide. Superficial burns can be managed with dressings alone,...
BACKGROUND
Burn injuries are the fourth most common traumatic injury, causing an estimated 180,000 deaths annually worldwide. Superficial burns can be managed with dressings alone, but deeper burns or those that fail to heal promptly are usually treated surgically. Acute burns surgery aims to debride burnt skin until healthy tissue is reached, at which point skin grafts or temporising dressings are applied. Conventional debridement is performed with an angled blade, tangentially shaving burned tissue until healthy tissue is encountered. Hydrosurgery, an alternative to conventional blade debridement, simultaneously debrides, irrigates, and removes tissue with the aim of minimising damage to uninjured tissue. Despite the increasing use of hydrosurgery, its efficacy and the risk of adverse events following surgery for burns is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hydrosurgical debridement and skin grafting versus conventional surgical debridement and skin grafting for the treatment of acute partial-thickness burns.
SEARCH METHODS
In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people of any age with acute partial-thickness burn injury and assessed the use of hydrosurgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
One RCT met the inclusion criteria of this review. The study sample size was 61 paediatric participants with acute partial-thickness burns of 3% to 4% total burn surface area. Participants were randomised to hydrosurgery or conventional debridement. There may be little or no difference in mean time to complete healing (mean difference (MD) 0.00 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.25 to 6.25) or postoperative infection risk (risk ratio 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11). These results are based on very low-certainty evidence, which was downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in operative time between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement (MD 0.2 minutes, 95% CI -12.2 to 12.6); again, the certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in scar outcomes at six months. Health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review contains one randomised trial of hydrosurgery versus conventional debridement in a paediatric population with low percentage of total body surface area burn injuries. Based on the available trial data, there may be little or no difference between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement in terms of time to complete healing, postoperative infection, operative time, and scar outcomes at six months. These results are based on very low-certainty evidence. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse event outcomes is required.
Topics: Bias; Burns; Child; Debridement; Humans; Hydrotherapy; Operative Time; Skin Transplantation; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32882071
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012826.pub2 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Apr 2023Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical technique used in the treatment of breast cancer (BC). It may reduce margin positivity in histologic assessment and consequently...
PURPOSE
Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical technique used in the treatment of breast cancer (BC). It may reduce margin positivity in histologic assessment and consequently reduces re- excision rates in breast conserving surgery (BCS). The evidence for this assumption is described in the present review.
METHODS
A systematic review of relevant literature in English from January 1999 to April 2019 was conducted. The analysis included studies on CS and its effects on re-excision rates and margin positivity. We searched PubMed databases for relevant publications. In total, 22 studies were included in the present review.
RESULTS
The benefit from CS on re-excision rates and histologic margin positivity was variable. Out of 22 studies, 17 reported a reduction in both re-excision rates and histologic margin positivity in margin shaved patients. Four studies could not find a significant reduction of second surgeries and residual tumor rates. One study suggested that CS after BCS was superior to single BCS only in subgroup analysis in IDC tumors.
CONCLUSION
CS is a surgical technique that was shown to reduce re-excision and margin positivity rates in most of the studies. Furthermore, it can be a useful tool to assess specimen margins and detect multifocality.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast; Mastectomy, Segmental; Neoplasm, Residual; Reoperation; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35593951
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06512-5