4.5 Article

Percutaneous excisional biopsy of clinically benign breast lesions with vacuum-assisted system: Comparison of three devices

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 81, 期 4, 页码 725-730

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.059

关键词

Breast biopsy; Vacuum-assisted biopsy system; Benign breast lesion; Minimally invasive; Excisional biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare three devices in percutaneous excisional biopsy of clinically benign breast lesions in terms of complete excision rate, duration of procedure and complications. Materials and methods: In a retrospective study from March 2005 to May 2009, 983 lesions underwent ultrasound-guided excisional biopsy with three vacuum-assisted systems, respectively. The lesions were category 3 lesions as determined by ultrasound imaging according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) (n = 951) or had been confirmed as benign by a previous core needle biopsy (n = 32). The completely excision rate, duration of procedure and complications (hematoma, pain and ecchymosis) were recorded. Results: 99.7% (980/983) lesions were demonstrated to be benign by pathology after percutaneous excisional biopsy. The overall complete excision rate was 94.8% (932/983). In lesions whose largest diameter equal to or larger than 1.5 cm, the complete excision rates of EnCor (R) group (97.8%, 348/356) and Mammotome (R) group (97.2%, 139/143) were significantly higher than that of Vacora (R) group (91.9%, 445/484) (P < 0.05). The EnCor (R) group (6.6 +/- 6.5 min) had a significant less duration than Mammotome (R) (10.6 +/- 9.3 min) and Vacora (R) group (25.6 +/- 23.3 min) (P < 0.05). Hematoma occurred more in EnCor (R) group and Mammotome (R) group than in Vacora (R) group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: All these three vacuum-assisted systems are highly successful for excisional biopsy of benign breast lesions. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据