ABSTRACT
Purpose@#Endoscopic breast surgery for patients with breast cancer was introduced for its superior cosmetic outcomes; it was initially studied in the field of breast-conserving surgery and, more recently, in robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). The main purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of endoscopic NSM (E-NSM) in patients with breast cancer by comparing E-NSM and conventional NSM (C-NSM). @*Methods@#Between May 2017 and October 2020, we retrieved the records of 45 patients who underwent NSM with permanent silicone implants and divided them into the E-NSM group (20 patients) and the C-NSM group (25 patients), depending on the use of the endoscopic device.We also analyzed demographic information, pathology, operative time, and complications. @*Results@#No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups based on demographic information, postoperative pathological data, mean length of hospital stay, and total number of complications. The mean preparation time for surgery was comparable between both groups. Compared to the C-NSM group, the E-NSM group had a significantly longer mean operative time and, subsequently, a significantly longer mean total operative time and number of complications. @*Conclusion@#The results showed that E-NSM was feasible and safe with a more inconspicuous incision in patients with breast cancer.
ABSTRACT
Purpose@#Endoscopic breast surgery for patients with breast cancer was introduced for its superior cosmetic outcomes; it was initially studied in the field of breast-conserving surgery and, more recently, in robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). The main purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of endoscopic NSM (E-NSM) in patients with breast cancer by comparing E-NSM and conventional NSM (C-NSM). @*Methods@#Between May 2017 and October 2020, we retrieved the records of 45 patients who underwent NSM with permanent silicone implants and divided them into the E-NSM group (20 patients) and the C-NSM group (25 patients), depending on the use of the endoscopic device.We also analyzed demographic information, pathology, operative time, and complications. @*Results@#No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups based on demographic information, postoperative pathological data, mean length of hospital stay, and total number of complications. The mean preparation time for surgery was comparable between both groups. Compared to the C-NSM group, the E-NSM group had a significantly longer mean operative time and, subsequently, a significantly longer mean total operative time and number of complications. @*Conclusion@#The results showed that E-NSM was feasible and safe with a more inconspicuous incision in patients with breast cancer.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Reducing preoperative fasting time showed positive effects in several studies, and current guidelines suggest use of a preoperative oral carbohydrate-rich solution before elective surgeries. For elective colectomy procedures, some surgeons favor two-day bowel preparation with diet restriction and administration of laxatives. Aside from patients experiencing the discomfort of nil per os (NPO), there are reported benefits regarding intake of liquids until at least two hours prior to surgery, including decrease in insulin resistance, without additional postoperative surgical complications. The aim of this study is to show the benefits of administration of oral rehydration solution (ORS) two hours prior to surgery for patients undergoing elective colectomy, particularly postoperative insulin resistance. METHODS: This is a randomized controlled trial. All patients undergoing elective colectomy were included and randomized to the control arm or treatment arm. The control arm consisted of the standard bowel preparation and one day of NPO, while the treatment arm consisted of the standard bowel preparation and allowing intake of carbohydrate-rich ORS until 2 hours before surgery. The insulin, glucose, cortisol, and triglyceride levels were determined immediately after induction, 6 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours post-op, and compared. The homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance, insulin, glucose, cortisol, and triglyceride levels were determined and compared between the two groups. Anxiety and postoperative complications were monitored and assessed as well. RESULTS: There was less insulin resistance in patients who received ORS 2 hours prior to surgery. Insulin, glucose, cortisol, and triglyceride levels were lower in the treatment group compared to the control group. Taking ORS 1 day prior and until 2 hours before surgery decreased anxiety and discomfort, and alleviated hunger. CONCLUSION: Regarding complications, there was no difference in the incidence of aspiration and postoperative complications. There were fewer wound complications and incidence of paralytic ileus in the treatment group.