-
Radiologia 2020Breast implants are associated with well-known common complications that have been widely studied, such as rupture and capsular contraction. However, the increasingly... (Review)
Review
Breast implants are associated with well-known common complications that have been widely studied, such as rupture and capsular contraction. However, the increasingly growing number of patients with breast implants has led to the increased likelihood of coming across less common complications; these include seromas or late infection; adenopathies in the internal mammary chain; granulomas in the capsule of the implant, which in some cases can extend beyond the fibrous capsule; desmoid tumors associated with the implants; and breast implant-associated large cell anaplastic lymphoma. This article aims to review the main uncommon complications associated with breast implants and to describe and illustrate their findings in different imaging techniques. Proper management of these complications is important; this is especially true of late seroma and the diagnosis of breast implant-associated large cell anaplastic lymphoma for their repercussions.
Topics: Breast Implants; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Fibroma; Granuloma, Foreign-Body; Humans; Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic; Postoperative Complications; Silicone Gels
PubMed: 32273126
DOI: 10.1016/j.rx.2020.01.008 -
Australian Journal of General Practice Sep 2019The availability of complex wound dressings following progressive innovations, increasing demand for hospital beds and the early discharge of post-operative patients...
BACKGROUND
The availability of complex wound dressings following progressive innovations, increasing demand for hospital beds and the early discharge of post-operative patients have shifted the sharing of care of such patients from hospital specialists to general practitioners (GPs). Although several published guidelines on the management of chronic wounds exist, there is a lack of similar material addressing the assessment and management of post-surgical wounds.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this article is to provide a practical guideline for identifying early complications of post-surgical wounds and managing patients with complex wound dressing systems such as vacuum-assisted closure.
DISCUSSION
Early detection of wound complications is crucial to improving patients' quality of life and reducing hospital readmission. GP competency in the proper application of complex dressings is one component that can improve these factors. Effective communication, including documentation, between hospitals, community nurses and GPs ensures smooth management of wound care for patients.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bandages; Drainage; General Practice; Hematoma; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Postoperative Complications; Referral and Consultation; Seroma; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Sutures; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 31476832
DOI: 10.31128/AJGP-04-19-4921 -
Journal of Orthopaedics Dec 2018Morel-Lavallée lesions can occur in polytrauma patients. Post-operative seroma is more frequently encountered, holds many pathological similarities with MLLs and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Morel-Lavallée lesions can occur in polytrauma patients. Post-operative seroma is more frequently encountered, holds many pathological similarities with MLLs and continues to challenge plastic surgeons. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of MLLs to increase awareness of optimum treatment options amongst plastic surgery teams, and to provide a management algorithm that may also be applied to post-operative seromas.
METHODS
PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library were searched using the terms "Morel-Lavallée", "management" and "treatment", which yielded 52 results. One reviewer screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Seventeen full text articles were retrieved. Review of reference lists provided a further three articles for inclusion.
FINDINGS
Morel-Lavallée lesions (MLLs) represent closed injuries with internal degloving of superficial soft tissues from fascial layers. Main causes of MLLs include high-energy, blunt force trauma or crush injuries. They are commonly found overlying the greater trochanter. MLLs should be actively looked for when treating patients with pelvic trauma. MRI is the investigation of choice. Currently no guidelines for the management of MLLs exist. Compression bandaging, percutaneous aspiration, sclerodesis and mass resection have all been utilised.
CONCLUSIONS
Our algorithm recommends avoidance of conservative management. For chronic lesions, percutaneous aspiration should not be used in isolation. Sclerodesis using doxycycline is appropriate for lesions up to 400 ml, where evidence suggests high degrees of efficacy. Larger lesions should be treated with open surgery. Quilting sutures, curettage and low suction drains are useful adjuncts. We hypothesise this algorithm would also be effective for post-operative seromas.
PubMed: 30190632
DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2018.08.032 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2021, 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 and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. Our primary outcomes were SSI, mortality, and wound dehiscence.
MAIN RESULTS
In this fourth update, we added 18 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one new economic study, resulting in a total of 62 RCTs (13,340 included participants) and six economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in a wide range of surgeries, including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Primary outcomes Eleven studies (6384 participants) which reported mortality were pooled. There is low-certainty evidence showing there may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (0.84%) compared with standard dressings (1.17%) but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefits and harm; risk ratio (RR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.30; I = 0%). Fifty-four studies reported SSI; 44 studies (11,403 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT probably results in fewer SSIs (8.7% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (11.75%) after surgery; RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; I = 29%). Thirty studies reported wound dehiscence; 23 studies (8724 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference in dehiscence between people treated with NPWT (6.62%) and those treated with standard dressing (6.97%), although there is imprecision around the estimate that includes risk of benefit and harms; RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; I = 4%). Evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias, or a combination of these. Secondary outcomes There is low-certainty evidence for the outcomes of reoperation and seroma; in each case, confidence intervals included both benefit and harm. There may be a reduced risk of reoperation favouring the standard dressing arm, but this was imprecise: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.41; I = 2%; 18 trials; 6272 participants). There may be a reduced risk of seroma for people treated with NPWT but this is imprecise: the RR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I = 0%; 15 trials; 5436 participants). For skin blisters, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with NPWT may be more likely to develop skin blisters compared with those treated with standard dressing (RR 3.55; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.77; I = 74%; 11 trials; 5015 participants). The effect of NPWT on haematoma is uncertain (RR 0.79; 95 % CI 0.48 to 1.30; I = 0%; 17 trials; 5909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence of little to no difference in reported pain between groups. Pain was measured in different ways and most studies could not be pooled; this GRADE assessment is based on all fourteen trials reporting pain; the pooled RR for the proportion of participants who experienced pain was 1.52 (95% CI 0.20, 11.31; I = 34%; two studies; 632 participants). Cost-effectiveness Six economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in five indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty; coronary artery bypass grafts; and vascular surgery with inguinal incisions. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years or an equivalent, and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the evidence certainty varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
People with primary closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSIs than people treated with standard dressings but there is probably no difference in wound dehiscence (moderate-certainty evidence). There may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT compared with standard dressings but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). People treated with NPWT may experience more instances of skin blistering compared with standard dressing treatment (low-certainty evidence). There are no clear differences in other secondary outcomes where most evidence is low or very low-certainty. Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.
Topics: Blister; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seroma; Soft Tissue Injuries; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35471497
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009261.pub7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). While existing evidence for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). While existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT remains uncertain, new trials necessitated an updated review of the evidence for the effects of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing through primary closure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus in February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and checked reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another type of NPWT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and quality assessment according to GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In this second update we added 25 intervention trials, resulting in a total of 30 intervention trials (2957 participants), and two economic studies nested in trials. Surgeries included abdominal and colorectal (n = 5); caesarean section (n = 5); knee or hip arthroplasties (n = 5); groin surgery (n = 5); fractures (n = 5); laparotomy (n = 1); vascular surgery (n = 1); sternotomy (n = 1); breast reduction mammoplasty (n = 1); and mixed (n = 1). In three key domains four studies were at low risk of bias; six studies were at high risk of bias; and 20 studies were at unclear risk of bias. We judged the evidence to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes, downgrading the level of the evidence on the basis of risk of bias and imprecision.Primary outcomesThree studies reported mortality (416 participants; follow-up 30 to 90 days or unspecified). It is uncertain whether NPWT has an impact on risk of death compared with standard dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Twenty-five studies reported on SSI. The evidence from 23 studies (2533 participants; 2547 wounds; follow-up 30 days to 12 months or unspecified) showed that NPWT may reduce the rate of SSIs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias).Fourteen studies reported dehiscence. We combined results from 12 studies (1507 wounds; 1475 participants; follow-up 30 days to an average of 113 days or unspecified) that compared NPWT with standard dressings. It is uncertain whether NPWT reduces the risk of wound dehiscence compared with standard dressings (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision).Secondary outcomesWe are uncertain whether NPWT increases or decreases reoperation rates when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63; 6 trials; 1021 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision) or if there is any clinical benefit associated with NPWT for reducing wound-related readmission to hospital within 30 days (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.57; 7 studies; 1271 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). It is also uncertain whether NPWT reduces incidence of seroma compared with standard dressings (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; 6 studies; 568 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision). It is uncertain if NPWT reduces or increases the risk of haematoma when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.42; 6 trials; 831 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision. It is uncertain if there is a higher risk of developing blisters when NPWT is compared with a standard dressing (RR 6.64, 95% CI 3.16 to 13.95; 6 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Quality of life was not reported separately by group but was used in two economic evaluations to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). There was no clear difference in incremental QALYs for NPWT relative to standard dressing when results from the two trials were combined (mean difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; moderate-certainty evidence).One trial concluded that NPWT may be more cost-effective than standard care, estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of GBP 20.65 per QALY gained. A second cost-effectiveness study estimated that when compared with standard dressings NPWT was cost saving and improved QALYs. We rated the overall quality of the reports as very good; we did not grade the evidence beyond this as it was based on modelling assumptions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the addition of 25 trials, results are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes. Consequently, uncertainty remains about whether NPWT compared with a standard dressing reduces or increases the incidence of important outcomes such as mortality, dehiscence, seroma, or if it increases costs. Given the cost and widespread use of NPWT for SSI prophylaxis, there is an urgent need for larger, well-designed and well-conducted trials to evaluate the effects of newer NPWT products designed for use on clean, closed surgical incisions. Such trials should initially focus on wounds that may be difficult to heal, such as sternal wounds or incisions on obese patients.
Topics: Bandages; Blister; Hematoma; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Orthopedic Procedures; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Seroma; Skin Transplantation; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 30912582
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009261.pub4 -
Medicine Jul 2022Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed surgery. The ideal procedure for inguinal hernia repair remains controversial. Open Lichtenstein... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein tension-free open mesh inguinal hernia repair: A prospective randomized study.
Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed surgery. The ideal procedure for inguinal hernia repair remains controversial. Open Lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair (LMR) is one of the most preferred open techniques with satisfactory outcomes. Laparoscopic approach in inguinal hernia surgery remains controversial, especially in comparison with open procedures. In this study, we have reported a comparison of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair with LMR. Postoperative pain, operative time, complications like seroma, wound infection, chronic groin pain, and recurrence rate were parameters to evaluate the outcome. One hundred seventy-four patients were included in the study by consecutive randomized prospective sampling. The patients were divided into 2 groups: group A, laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair, and group B, LMR. The procedures were performed by experienced surgeons. The primary outcomes were evaluated based on postoperative pain and recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes considered for evaluation were operative time, complications like seroma, infection, and chronic groin pain. Severe pain was reported in group A (7.9%) compared to group B (15.1%), which was statistically significant (P < .001). Moderate pain was reported more in group B (70.9%) compared to group A (29.5%) (P < .001). The mean operative time in group A was 84.6 ± 32.2, which was significantly higher than that in group B, 59.2 ± 14.8. There was no major complication in both groups. The chronic pain postoperatively was significantly in higher number of patients in group B vs group A (22.09% vs 3.4%). The postoperative hospital stay period was significantly lesser for group A vs for group B (2.68 ± 1.52 vs 3.86 ± 6.16). Time duration taken to resume normal activities was significantly lower in group A (13.6 ± 6.8) vs (19.8 ± 4.6) in group B (P < .001). Although there is definite evidence of longer operative time and learning curve, laparoscopic TEP has added advantages like less postoperative pain, early resumption of normal activities, less chronic groin pain, and comparable recurrence rate compared to open Lichtenstein repair. Laparoscopic TEP can be performed with acceptable outcomes and less postoperative complications if performed by experienced hands.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Hernia, Inguinal; Humans; Laparoscopy; Pain, Postoperative; Prospective Studies; Seroma; Surgical Mesh; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35777031
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029746 -
Gland Surgery Apr 2017This paper presents patients satisfaction using anatomical polyurethane breast implants. We performed surgery on 525 patients, 370 of which were primary and 155 were... (Review)
Review
This paper presents patients satisfaction using anatomical polyurethane breast implants. We performed surgery on 525 patients, 370 of which were primary and 155 were secondary to various causes such as capsular contracture, ruptured implants, volume changes, and incorrect positioning of the implant. The advantages of silicone polyurethane covers shown high level of patient satisfaction, low incidence of capsular contracture, and absence of implant rotation, and late seroma.
PubMed: 28497022
DOI: 10.21037/gs.2016.11.02 -
BMC Cancer Aug 2020Seroma formation is a common complication after breast cancer surgery and can lead to delayed wound healing, infection, patient discomfort and repeated visits to the...
A single-center, randomized, non-inferiority study evaluating seroma formation after mastectomy combined with flap fixation with or without suction drainage: protocol for the Seroma reduction and drAin fRee mAstectomy (SARA) trial.
BACKGROUND
Seroma formation is a common complication after breast cancer surgery and can lead to delayed wound healing, infection, patient discomfort and repeated visits to the outpatient clinic. Mastectomy combined with flap fixation is becoming standard practice and is currently combined with closed-suction drainage. There is evidence showing that closed-suction drainage may be insufficient in preventing seroma formation. There is reasonable doubt whether there is still place for closed-suction drainage after mastectomy when flap fixation is performed. We hypothesize that mastectomy combined with flap fixation and closed suction drainage does not cause a significant lower incidence of seroma aspirations, when compared to mastectomy and flap fixation alone. Furthermore, we expect that patients without drainage will experience significantly less discomfort and comparable rates of surgical site infections.
METHODS
This is a randomized controlled trial in female breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and flap fixation using sutures with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Patients will be eligible for inclusion if they are older than 18 years, have an indication for mastectomy with or without sentinel procedure. Exclusion criteria are modified radical mastectomy, direct breast reconstruction, previous history of radiation therapy of the unilateral breast, breast conserving therapy and inability to give informed consent. A total of 250 patients will be randomly allocated to one of two groups: mastectomy combined with flap fixation and closed-suction drainage or mastectomy combined with flap fixation without drainage. Follow-up will be conducted up to six months postoperatively. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients undergoing one or more seroma aspirations. Secondary outcome measures consist of the number of invasive interventions, surgical site infection, quality of life measured using the SF-12 Health Survey, cosmesis, pain and number of additional outpatient department visits.
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, no randomized controlled trial has been conducted comparing flap fixation with and without closed-suction drainage with seroma aspiration as the primary outcome. This study could result in finding evidence that supports performing mastectomy without closed-suction drainage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This trial was approved by the medical ethical committee of Zuyderland Medical Center METC-Z on 20 March 2019 (METCZ20190023). The SARA Trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as per July 2019, Identifier: NCT04035590 .
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Netherlands; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Postoperative Complications; Sample Size; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy; Seroma; Suction; Surgical Flaps; Suture Techniques; Equivalence Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32767988
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07242-0 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has become a growing therapy for early-stage breast cancer (BC). Some studies claim that wound fluid (seroma), a common consequence of... (Review)
Review
Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has become a growing therapy for early-stage breast cancer (BC). Some studies claim that wound fluid (seroma), a common consequence of surgical excision in the tumor cavity, can reflect the effects of IORT on cancer inhibition. However, further research by our team and other researchers, such as analysis of seroma composition, affected cell lines, and primary tissues in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) culture systems, clarified that seroma could not address the questions about IORT effectiveness in the surgical site. In this review, we mention the factors involved in tumor recurrence, direct or indirect effects of IORT on BC, and all the studies associated with BC seroma to attain more information about the impact of IORT-induced seroma to make a better decision to remove or remain after surgery and IORT. Finally, we suggest that seroma studies cannot decipher the mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of IORT in BC patients. The question of whether IORT-seroma has a beneficial effect can only be answered in a trial with a clinical endpoint, which is not even ongoing.
PubMed: 36479071
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.980513