Interventional bleeding, hematoma and scar-formation after vacuum-biopsy under stereotactic guidance: Mammotome®-system 11g/8g vs. ATEC®-system 12g/9g
Introduction
In the last decade stereotactic breast biopsy has rapidly gained acceptance as the technique of choice for preoperative histopathologic diagnosis for non-palpable mammographic breast lesions that are not visible on ultrasound. The effectiveness and high accuracy of non-operative diagnosis achieved by this technique has led to reduced numbers of open surgical biopsies [1]. Stereotactically guided vacuum assisted-biopsy (VAB) includes devices ranging from 7- to 14-gauge. Vacuum-biopsy is more accurate than core-needle biopsy in the evaluation of microcalcifications, and a metaanalysis has proved the value of VAB for the diagnosis of breast cancer to be good. VAB provides lower mis- and underestimation rates than core biopsy does [2], [3], [4]. However, concerning complication rates for bleeding or hematoma using different VAB systems, data available in the literature is limited. There are only a few studies showing various results concerning suspicious changes, scar formation or abnormalities on follow-up mammograms after vacuum-biopsy [5], [6]. This may cause problems in the diagnosis of potential malignancy in the breast.
The purpose of our prospective study was to evaluate the performance of different VAB-systems and needle-sizes in VAB in terms of the periinterventional complications bleeding and hematoma and in terms of postinterventional scar formations. The VAB systems of interest were Mammotome® (Ethicon Endosurgery, Cincinatti, USA) implementing 11- and 8-gauge needles and ATEC®-VAB system (Suros, Indianapolis, USA) implementing 12- and 9-gauge needles.
Section snippets
Methods
Between January 2008 and December 2009, 479 patients underwent consecutively VAB under stereotactic guidance, using the Mammotome® system with 11- and 8-gauge needles or the ATEC® system with 12- and 9-gauge needles. Both systems are technically different. Different to the Mammotome® system the ATEC® system has a collecting vessel for the harvested biopsy samples and a lavage function to flush the biopsy cavity with NaCl solution 0.9%.
All biopsies were performed on a digital prone table
Results
Mammotome® 11-gauge and 8-gauge needles were used in 84 and 31 cases, respectively. ATEC® 12-gauge and 9-gauge needles were used in 37 and 26 cases, respectively. In 38 biopsies a craniocaudal approach was chosen (21.3%), in 108 cases a lateromedial approach (60.7%), and in 32 cases a mediolateral approach (18.0%). The mean number of biopsy samples taken was n = 22.71 for the Mammotome® 8-gauge needle (range, 6–24; standard deviation (SD), 4.173), n = 24.48 for the Mammotome® 11-gauge needle
Discussion
Scar formation after open surgical breast biopsy for benign or malignant lesions is well known and described in the literature [7], [8]. Mammographic findings also include architectural distortions with or without concomitant mass, micro- or macrocalcifications, opaque foreign body, asymmetric tissue defect, oil cysts, skin thickening or deformity. Especially scar formation may mimic direct mammographic signs of malignancy. But those findings usually present stable or regressive on follow-up
References (15)
- et al.
Factors associated with one step surgery in case of non-palpable breast cancer
Eur J Radiol
(2007) - et al.
Scar formation after stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy of benign breast lesions
Clin Radiol
(2006) Evaluation of the postoperative breast
Radiol Clin North Am
(1992)- et al.
Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art
Clin Radiol
(2010) - et al.
Evaluation of mammographic and clinical follow-up after 755 stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsies
Am J Surg
(2003) - et al.
Diagnostic value of vacuum-asisted breast biopsy for breast carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review
Breast Cancer Res Treat
(2010) - et al.
A comparison of the accuracy of two minimally invasive breast biopsy methods: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Arch Gynecol Obstet
(2006)
Cited by (0)
- 1
Tel.: +49 431 5972100; fax: +49 431 5972185.
- 2
Tel.: +49 431 5973153; fax: +49 431 5973151.
- 3
Tel.: +49 431 5972041; fax: +49 431 5972185.
- 4
Tel.: +49 431 5973023; fax: +49 431 5973151.