Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is a safe and effective alternative to wire localization (WL) for nonpalpable breast lesions. While several large academic institutions currently utilize RSL, few community hospitals have adopted this technique.
Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the experience of RSL versus WL at a large community hospital.
Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent RSL or WL for breast-conserving surgery from 1 November 2013 to 31 November 2015.
Results: The total number of lesions examined was 382. RSL was utilized in 205 (54%) lesions, with 187 undergoing single RSL, while WL was used in 155 (40%) lesions, with 109 undergoing single WL; both techniques were used in 22 (6%) lesions. Pathology was benign in 142 (48%) lesions, with 93 RSLs and 49 WLs. For malignant lesions, mean specimen size was 36.3 g for single RSL and 35.9 g for single WL (p = 0.904). Re-excision for margin clearance was required for 16 (17%) malignant lesions in the RSL group and 10 (17%) in the WL group (p = 0.954). For malignant lesions, mean operating room time was 86 min for single RSL versus 70 min for single WL (p = 0.014).
Conclusions: The use of RSL is a viable option in the community setting, with several benefits over WL. While operative times were slightly longer with RSL, there was no difference in specimen size or re-excision rate for malignant lesions.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6102-1 | DOI Listing |