Seroma in breast surgery: all the surgeons fault?
- 145 Downloads
Despite a trend for less radical surgical approaches in breast cancer due to better understanding of tumour biology and new treatment options such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT), seroma production remains one of the main surgical side effects that can result in prolonged recovery, delay of radiotherapy and patient discomfort. The aim of this study is to provide an update on risk factors for seroma production after breast cancer surgery considering the latest treatment options.
A retrospective analysis of seroma production in primary breast cancer patients treated between 01.01.2010 and 31.12.2014 at the Breast Cancer Centre, University Hospital Ulm, was performed. Patients with previous breast/axillary surgery or more than one intervention were excluded. Seroma formation was measured using wound drains placed in breast and axilla.
In total, 581 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median age at diagnosis was 60 years, and median BMI 25.6 kg/m2. 60 (10.3%) patients had a mastectomy, 175 (30.1%) patients received IORT, and 72 (12.4%) patients received NAC. Median amount of seroma production was 82.5 ml (range 0–3012.5 ml). Multivariate analysis revealed that most of the observed variation in seroma production was due to type of surgery (mastectomy vs. breast conserving), length of surgery and number of removed lymph nodes. Both NAC and IORT explained a significant but very small amount of the observed variation in seroma production.
The most important factors for seroma production are extent and duration of breast surgery.
KeywordsBreast surgery Wound drainage Seroma Risk factors
FE: conceptualization, writing original draft, review and editing. TWPF: data curation, formal analysis. AG: resources. KL: supporting. IB: validation. WJ: supervision. NG: conceptualization, review and editing.
No external or additional funding was used for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no potential conflict of interest.
This study was approved by the local ethic committee.
- 6.Buchholz TA, Somerfield MR, Griggs JJ, El-Eid S, Hammond MEH, Lyman GH et al (2014) Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol 32(14):1502–1506CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Kreienberg R, Kopp I, Albert U-S, Bartsch HH, Beckmann MW, Berg D et al (2012) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie und Nachsorge des Leitlinie. Ger Cancer Soc 2012(7):32–45Google Scholar
- 14.Thomson DR, Sadideen H, Furniss D (2013) Drainage tube placement after lymph gland removal from the armpit for breast cancer. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 15.Glechner A, Wöckel A, Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Strobelberger M, Griebler U et al (2013) Sentinel lymph node dissection only versus complete axillary lymph node dissection in early invasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 49:812–825CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Ebner F, Wöckel A, Janni W, Kreienberg R, Schwentner L, Wischnewsky M (2017) Personalized axillary dissection: the number of excised lymph nodes of nodal-positive breast cancer patients has no significant impact on relapse-free and overall survival. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143:1823–1831CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 28.Kraus-Tiefenbacher U, Welzel G, Brade J, Hermann B, Siebenlist K, Wasser KS et al (2010) Postoperative seroma formation after intraoperative radiotherapy using low-kilovoltage X-rays given during breast-conserving surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77(4):1140–1145CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar