Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complications of mastectomy and their relationship to biopsy technique

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Wound complication rates after mastectomy are associated with several factors, but little information is available correlating biopsy technique with the development of postmastectomy wound complications. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy is an accurate method to establish a diagnosis, but it is unknown whether this approach has an impact on complications after mastectomy.

Methods: Charts of 283 patients undergoing 289 mastectomies were reviewed to investigate any association between biopsy technique and postmastectomy complications.

Results: The diagnosis of breast cancer was made by FNA biopsy in 50%, open biopsy in 49.7%, and core needle biopsy in 0.3%. The overall wound infection rate was 5.3% (14 of 266), but only 1.6% when FNA biopsy was used compared with 6.9% with open biopsy (p=0.06). Among 43 patients undergoing breast reconstruction concomitantly with mastectomy, the infection rate was 7.1% (0% after FNA, 12% after open biopsy). Neither the development of a postoperative seroma (9.8%) nor skin flap necrosis (5.6%) was influenced by the biopsy technique used.

Conclusions: These data suggest that wound infections after mastectomy may be reduced when the diagnosis of breast cancer is established by FNA biopsy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rotstein C, Ferguson R, Cummings M, Piedmonte M, Lucey J, Banish A. Determinants of clean surgical wound infections for breast procedures at an oncology center.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:207–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vinton A, Traveraso W, Jolly PC. Wound complications after modified radical mastectomy compared with tylectomy with axillary lymph node dissection.Am J Surg 1991;161:584–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beatty JD, Robinson GV, Zaia JA, et al. A prospective analysis of nosocomial wound infection after mastectomy.Arch Surg 1983;118:1421–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wedgwood KR, Benson EA. Non-tumour morbidity and mortality after modified radical mastectomy.Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1992;74:314–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Watt-Boolsen S, Jacobsen K, Blichert-Toft M. Total mastectomy with special reference to surgical technique, extent of axillary dissection and complications.Acta Oncol 1988;27:663–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tejler G, Aspegren K. Complications and hospital stay after surgery for breast cancer: a prospective study of 385 patients.Br J Surg 1985;72:542–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoefer RA, DuBois JJ, Ostrow LB, Silver LF. Wound complications following modified radical mastectomy: an analysis of perioperative factors.J Am Osteopath Assoc 1990;90:47–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ehrenkranz NJ. Surgical wound infection occurrence in clean operations: stratification for interhospital comparisons.Am J Med 1981;70:909–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Badr El Din A, Guenier C, Nogaret JM, et al. Local postoperative morbidity following preoperative irradiation in locally advanced breast cancer.Eur J Surg Oncol 1989;15:486–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Armstrong RW, Berkowitz RL, Bolding F. Infection following breast reconstruction.Ann Plast Surg 1989;23:284–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoffman JP, Kusiak J, Boraas M, et al. Risk factors for immediate prosthetic postmastectomy reconstruction.Am Surg 1991;57:514–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hopkins CC. Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean surgery: peripheral vascular surgery, noncardiovascular thoracic surgery, herniorrhaphy, and mastectomy.Rev Infect Dis 1991;13(suppl 10):869–73.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Platt R, Zaleznik DF, Hopkins CC, et al. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for herniorrhaphy and breast surgery.N Engl J Med 1990;322:153–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wagman LD, Tegtmeier B, Beatty JD, et al. A prospective, randomized double-blind study of the use of antibiotic at the time of mastectomy.Surg Gynecol Obstet 1990;170:12–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Miller AP, Falcone RE. Breast reconstruction: systemic factors influencing local complications.Ann Plast Surg 1991;27:115–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Broadwater RJ, Edwards MJ, Kuglen C, Hortobagyi GN, Ames FC, Balch CM. Mastectomy following preoperative chemotherapy: strict operative criteria control operative morbidity.Ann Surg 1991;213:126–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolberg W, Tanner M, Loh W. Fine-needle aspiration for breast mass diagnosis.Arch Surg 1989;124:814–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shabat MM, Goldberg IM, Schick P, et al. Aspiration cytology is superior to Tru-cut TM needle biopsy in establishing the diagnosis of clinically suspicious breast cancer.Ann Surg 1982;196:122–6.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Martin HE, Ellic EB. Biopsy by needle puncture and aspiration.Ann Surg 1930;92:169–81.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Frable WJ. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy: a review.Hum Pathol 1983;14:9–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Frable WJ. Needle aspiration biopsy: past, present and future.Hum Pathol 1989;20:504–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Frable WJ.Thin needle aspiration biopsy. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1983:20–73.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pulombini L, Fulciniti F, Vetraini A, et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of breast masses. A critical analysis of 1956 cases in 8 years.Cancer 1988;61:2273–7.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Smith C, Butler J, Cobb C, State D. Fine-needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of primary breast cancer.Surgery 1988;103:178–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wanebo HJ, Feldman PS, Wilhelm MC, Cocell FL, Biuus RL. FNA cytology in lieu of open biopsy in management of primary breast carcinoma.Ann Surg 1984;149:569–79.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lannin DR, Silverman JF, Pories WJ, Walker C. Cost-effectiveness of fine-needle biopsy of the breast.Ann Surg 1986;203:474–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wertkin MG. Surgical pros and cons.Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;174:149–50.

    Google Scholar 

  28. SAS Institute Inc.SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6, 3rd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bottles K, Miller TR, Coehn MB, et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Has its time come?Am J Med 1986;81:525–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zakowski M. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of tumors: diagnostic accuracy and potential pitfalls.Cancer Invest 1994;12:505–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Frable W. Needle aspiration of the breast.Cancer 1984;53:671–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Griffieth CN, Kern WH, Mikkelsen WP. Needle aspiration cytologic examination in the management of suspicious lesions of the breast.Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;162:142–4.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Flowers JL, Burton GV, Cox EB, et al. Use of monoclonal antiestrogen receptor antibody to evaluate estrogen receptor content in fine-needle aspiration breast biopsy.Ann Surg 1986;203:250–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Weintraub J, Weintraub D, Rebard M, et al. Evaluation of estrogen receptors by immunocytochemistry on fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens from breast tumors.Cancer 1987;60:1163–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Painter R, Clark WE, Deckers PJ. Negative finding on fine-needle aspiration biopsy of solid breast masses; patient management.Am J Surg 1988;155:387–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Salter DR, Bassett AA. Role of needle-aspiration on reducing the number of unnecessary breast biopsies.Can J Surg 1981;24:311–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gonzalez E, Grafton WD, Morris DM, et al. Diagnosing breast cancer using frozen sections from Tru-CutTM needle biopsies.Ann Surg 1985;202:696–701.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, USA

    Russell M. Boyle PhD

  2. Department of Pathology, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, USA

    William J. Frable MD

  3. School of Medicine, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, USA

    Parisa Lotfi MD

  4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Virginia, P.O. Box 980011, 23298-0011, Richmond, VA, USA

    Kenneth A. Lipshy MD,  James P. Neifeld MD, Stephen Ronan MD, Harry D. Bear MD, PhD, J. Shelton Horsley III MD & Walter Lawrence Jr MD

Authors
  1. Kenneth A. Lipshy MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James P. Neifeld MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Russell M. Boyle PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William J. Frable MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephen Ronan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Parisa Lotfi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Harry D. Bear MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. Shelton Horsley III MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Walter Lawrence Jr MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lipshy, K.A., Neifeld, J.P., Boyle, R.M. et al. Complications of mastectomy and their relationship to biopsy technique. Annals of Surgical Oncology 3, 290–294 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02306285

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02306285

Key Words

Search

Navigation