Search

Wire‐guided localization (WGL) is the standard of care in the surgical treatment of nonpalpable breast tumors. In this study, we compare the use of a new magnetic marker localization (MaMaLoc) technique to WGL in the treatment of early‐stage breast cancer patients. Open‐label, single‐center, randomized controlled trial comparing MaMaLoc (intervention) to WGL (control) in women with early‐stage breast cancer. Primary outcome was surgical usability measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS, 0–100 score). Secondary outcomes were patient reported, clinical, and pathological outcomes such as retrieval rate, operative time, resected specimen weight, margin status, and reoperation rate. Thirty‐two patients were analyzed in the MaMaLoc group and 35 in the WGL group. Patient and tumor characteristics were comparable between groups. No in situ complications occurred. Retrieval rate was 100% in both groups. Surgical usability was higher for MaMaLoc: 70.2 ± 8.9 vs. 58.1 ± 9.1, p < 0.001. Patients reported higher overall satisfaction with MaMaLoc (median score 5/5) versus WGL (score 4/5), p < 0.001. The use of magnetic marker localization (MaMaLoc) for early‐stage breast cancer is effective and has higher surgical usability than standard WGL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The minimally invasive (MI) anterolateral approach is a relatively new approach for the treatment of femoral neck fractures with a hemiarthroplasty (HA). There is limited research available presenting clinical outcomes after an HA using the MI approach. Therefore the aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes of the MI and traditional anterolateral approaches in patients after HA.Methods: Data were extracted from a prospective hip fracture database and completed by retrospective review of the electronic medical records. Patients undergoing HA in a level II trauma teaching hospital between 1 January 2011 and 1 May 2016 were enrolled.Results: A total of 463 patients (67% female), 223 in the MI group (mean age, 82 ± 7) and 240 (mean age, 81 ± 8) in the traditional anterolateral group were enrolled. No significant difference was found in baseline characteristics. The surgeons experience measured by the operations performed per year was in favour of the MI anterolateral group (26 vs 18, p < 0.001). The median operating time for an MI approach was shorter (53 vs 69 min, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in mortality rates (p = 0.131) and post-operative complications: haematomas (p = 0.63), dislocations (p = 0.63), deep surgical site infections (p = 0.66) and re-operations.Conclusions: Our findings show the MI anterolateral approach has a minimally shorter operation time with no difference in post-operative complications and clinical outcomes. We, therefore, conclude that the MI anterolateral approach is a safe alternative for the traditional anterolateral approach with an improved operation time, a smaller incision and less surrounding tissue damage.Level Of Evidence: Prognostic level III retrospective cohort study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]