Journal of Surgery

Introduction: Breast cancer represents a malignant lump in the breast that can cause a change in the shape of the breast, a change in the color of the skin of the breast, indentation of the breast and discharge from the nipple.

The aim: The aim of this study was monitoring of all the patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and were treated in the regional center in Kruševac.

Material and methods: All patients operated on by one of the methods were monitored, and the date of the last control was taken as relevant data for the assessment of DFI and OS (Disease free interval - the period from setting up a diagnosis to the first relapse and Overall survival – the total survival in both groups. The percentage of mortality in both groups in relation to the clinical stage of the disease was analyzed.

Results: The largest number of patients underwent modified radical mastectomy, more than three times more than with breast-conserving surgery. Unfortunately, in 5.01% of patients only a biopsy was performed, which confirms the diagnosis of inoperable cancer, while the fate of 5 diagnosed cancers is unknown. There is no statistically significant difference in the percentage of mortality in both groups of patients operated on by modified radical mastectomy and patients operated on by breast-conserving surgery, up to stage IIIa, (t=0.39, p>0.05).

Conclusion: Analysis of the percentage of mortality did not show statistically significant differences in the percentage of mortality in both groups operated with modified radical mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery at the same clinical stage and for the same time period.

Background: Electrosurgical smoke can interfere with visibility in the surgical field and can potentially be a harmful irritant to operating room staff. Smoke evacuators with adequate flow rates can reduce smoke at the surgical site, but their acceptance into practice has been slow, in part due to their noise. This study compared the Megadyne Smoke Evacuator to a conventional device in terms of flow rate and noise levels.

Methods: In the first series of tests, the Megadyne Smoke Evacuator was compared to a conventional device for noise levels at full flow rates and at comparable flow rates. In the second series, using the conventional smoke evacuator, the Megadyne Telescoping Smoke Evacuation Pencil was compared to the conventional pencil for noise levels at a comparable flow rate.

Results: The Megadyne Smoke Evacuator provided 52% higher maximum flow rate and was 7.0 dBA (39%) quieter (p<0.001). At comparable flow rates, Megadyne was 14.5 dBA (63%) quieter (p<0.001). The Megadyne Telescoping Pencil provided higher flow rates, while producing 4.8 dBA (28%) less noise.

Conclusions: Potential health concerns have led to the promulgation of local and national regulations regarding the use of smoke evacuators during electrosurgery. Removing smoke effectively while maintaining a low level of background noise can improve the working environment of the operating room staff. This study shows that Megadyne Smoke Evacuator and Pencil provide higher flow rates while being quieter than a conventional device.