Switching to Tumescent Dissection in Mastectomy.

Introduction

Tumescent dissection (TUM) combines the use of crystalloid, local anesthetic, and epinephrine to create a bloodless plane to raise skin flaps. We aim to compare outcomes of TUM versus standard electrocautery dissection in mastectomies with and without reconstruction.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent mastectomy by a single surgeon between January 2016 and October 2020 utilizing the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was complication rate, and the secondary outcome was operative time. Chi-squared analysis and two-sample t-tests were used to examine outcomes.

Results

Among 242 patients, 141 patients underwent TUM and 101 patients underwent electrocautery. 44.68% of TUM patients experienced one or more complications compared to 59.41% of electrocautery patients (p=0.024). There were fewer cases of wound healing complications in the TUM group with reconstruction compared to the electrocautery group with reconstruction (6.1% vs. 21%, p=0.005). Infection rate was higher in the TUM group with reconstruction compared to the electrocautery group with reconstruction (14.3% vs. 3.2%, p=0.023). There was no significant difference in rates of hematoma, seroma, skin flap necrosis, nipple areolar complex necrosis, or re-exploration by dissection technique. The mean operative time was shorter with TUM compared to electrocautery (216.09 min vs. 250.16 min, p=0.016).

Conclusion

TUM yields comparable results with decreased overall complication rates compared to electrocautery dissection. Electrocautery thermal effect may account for skin-related complications. Additionally, tumescent mastectomies have shorter length of operative time which could reduce the risk of complications associated with increased time under general anesthesia.