Comparative Effectiveness and Complications of Surgical and Conservative Management in Breast Abscess Patients: A Prospective Analytical Study
Surgical vs. Conservative Breast Abscess Management
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69750/dmls.01.02.026Keywords:
Breast abscess, Surgical treatment, Conservative treatment, Ultrasound-guided aspiration, Incision and drainageAbstract
Background: Mammary abscesses are infections that are enclosed without involving the surrounding tissues they are common with breast cancer patients through uncontrolled or poorly controlled mastitis. Hence, this work seeks to assess the management of surgical and conservative approaches for treating breast abscesses.
Objective: The objective of the study was to ascertain the treatment methods used in management of breast abscesses and to determine the results and adverse outcomes of those that are applied.
Methodology: A prospective analytical study was conducted in the Department of Surgery at Ghurki Trust & Teaching Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, from February 2023 to March 2024. A total of 270 patients were initially enrolled, with 200 completing the 3-month follow-up. Patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment modality. Group I (Surgical Treatment) and Group II (Conservative/Minimally Invasive Treatment). SPSS version-20 was used to analyse results Patient groups were compared using the chi-squared test for categorical variables, for continuous variables, such as age, an independent samples t-test was utilized to compare the means between the two groups (p≤0.05) was considered.
Results: Surgical treatment (Group I) demonstrated a significant reduction in reoperations and respiration compared to conservative treatments (Group II), where a notable percentage of patients (41.7%) needed further intervention. Notably, the rate of deformity due to scarring and contracture was higher in the conservative/minimally invasive group, affecting 30% of these patients, compared to 14.3% in the surgical group. Moreover, there was no carcinoma reported in group II in contrast with group I of the surgically operated patients 5% of them were found to have carcinoma.
Conclusion: Surgical treatment for breast abscesses, particularly larger ones, offers more definitive resolution with fewer long-term complications compared to conservative management. Personalized treatment planning is essential to optimize patient outcomes and reduce morbidity.
Downloads
References
Mohamedahmed AYY, Zaman S, Zafar S, Laroiya I, Iqbal J, Tan MLH, et al. Comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery for treatment of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 studies. Surgical oncology. 2022;42:101779.
Zhou F, Liu L, Liu L, Yu L, Wang F, Xiang Y, et al. Comparison of conservative versus surgical treatment protocols in treating idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: a meta-analysis. Breast Care. 2020;15(4):415-20.
Cosse C, Rebibo L, Brazier F, Hakim S, Delcenserie R, Regimbeau J-M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of stent type in endoscopic treatment of gastric leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Journal of British Surgery. 2018;105(5):570-7.
Sekigami Y, Char S, Mullen C, Huber K, Cao Y, Buchsbaum R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis: lymph node transfer vs lymphovenous bypass for breast cancer-related lymphedema. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2021;232(6):837-45.
Grover R, Padula WV, Van Vliet M, Ridgway EB. Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2013;132(5):709e-23e.
Nherera LM, Trueman P, Schmoeckel M, Fatoye FA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of single use negative pressure wound therapy dressings (sNPWT) compared to standard of care in reducing surgical site complications (SSC) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2018;13:1-8.
Podda M, Kovacs M, Hellmich M, Roth R, Zarrouk M, Kraus D, et al. A randomised controlled multicentre investigator-blinded clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety of surgery versus complex physical decongestive therapy for lipedema (LIPLEG). Trials. 2021;22:1-11.
Yoon AP, Shauver MJ, Hutton DW, Chung KC, Group W. Cost-effectiveness of treatments after closed extraarticular distal radius fractures in older adults from the WRIST clinical trial. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2021;147(2):240e-52e.
Ghunaim H. Percutaneouse ultrasound‐guided needle aspiration for management of breast abscesses–a review. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. 2023;70(3):327-37.
Borisenko O, Lukyanov V, Debergh I, Dillemans B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery for morbid obesity in Belgium. Journal of medical economics. 2018;21(4):365-73.
Mericli AF, McHugh T, Kruse B, DeSnyder SM, Rebello E, Offodile II AC. Time-driven activity-based costing to model cost utility of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways in microvascular breast reconstruction. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2020;230(5):784-94. e3.
Zhou F, Liu L, Liu L, Yu L, Wang F, Xiang Y, et al. Comparison of Conservative versus Surgical Treatment Protocols in Treating Idiopathic Granulomatous Mastitis: A Meta-Analysis. Breast Care (Basel). 2020;15(4):415-20.
Ghunaim H. Percutaneouse ultrasound-guided needle aspiration for management of breast abscesses – a review. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. 2023;70(3):327-37.
Karvande R, Ahire M, Bhole M, Rathod C. Comparison between aspiration and incision and drainage of breast abscess. International Surgery Journal. 2016;3(4):1773-80.
Gosselin-Tardif A, Abou-Khalil M, Mata J, Guigui A, Cools-Lartigue J, Ferri L, et al. Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost-effectiveness analysis. BJS open. 2020;4(5):830-9.
Ouldamer L, Bonastre J, Brunet-Houdard S, Body G, Giraudeau B, Caille A. Dead space closure with quilting suture versus conventional closure with drainage for the prevention of seroma after mastectomy for breast cancer (QUISERMAS): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ open. 2016;6(4):e009903.
Irusen H, Rohwer AC, Steyn DW, Young T. Treatments for breast abscesses in breastfeeding women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(8):Cd010490.
Shiroky J, Lillie E, Muaddi H, Sevigny M, Choi WJ, Karanicolas PJ. The impact of negative pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions on surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2020;167(6):1001-9.
Bruce J, Mazuquin B, Canaway A, Hossain A, Williamson E, Mistry P, et al. Exercise versus usual care after non-reconstructive breast cancer surgery (UK PROSPER): multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. bmj. 2021;375.
RASHID M, SHAHBAZ MN, AKRAM A, ANWAR A, UMAR M, ALI MS, et al. Analysis of Patients Receiving Treatment for Inflammatory Breast Disease at Surgery Department of Tertiary Care Units. DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICO-LIFE-SCIENCES. 2024;1(1).
Tsoi B, Ziolkowski NI, Thoma A, Campbell K, O’Reilly D, Goeree R. Safety of tissue expander/implant versus autologous abdominal tissue breast reconstruction in postmastectomy breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2014;133(2):234-49.
PlumX Metrics
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICO-LIFE-SCIENCES
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/public domain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
