ArticleGland surgery2021
Clinical research on minimally invasive rotary resection in the treatment of lactational breast abscess.
Article in Gland surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of the outcomes of a novel technique of Mini-Incision and Self-Express (MISE) for breast abscess with the conventional techniques: a retrospective comparative cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study sought to compare the efficacy of minimally invasive rotatory resection plus catheter drainage and puncture abscess aspiration in the treatment of lactational breast abscess.
methodsThe data of 80 patients with lactational breast abscess at the Department of Mammary Gland, Tianjin Central Hospital of Gynecology Obstetrics, from January 2019 to January 2020 were retrospectively collected. The patients were divided into the minimally invasive group (n=30) and the abscess aspiration group (n=50). Clinical data, including age, parity, preoperative body temperature, postpartum time, time of abscess cavity generation, diameter and position of abscess cavity, intraoperative drainage, bleeding, recovery time, and satisfaction score, were collected and compared between the 2 groups of patients.
resultsThe baseline data between the 2 groups were not significantly different. The minimally invasive group had a higher single drainage volume and single bleeding volume (P<0.05), and lower cumulative pain score (P<0.05); the cumulative bleeding volume did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (P>0.05). For the abscess cavities with a diameter ≤5 cm, the single drainage volume, single bleeding volume, and single pain score in the minimally invasive group were significantly higher than those in the abscess aspiration group (P<0.05); the total drainage volume was similar between the 2 groups (P>0.05). For the abscess cavities with a diameter >5 cm, the single drainage volume and single bleeding volume in the minimally invasive group were significantly higher than those in the abscess aspiration group (P<0.05), while the cumulative bleeding volume, single pain score, and cumulative pain score were lower in the minimally invasive group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in total drainage between the 2 groups (P>0.05).
conclusionsWhen the abscess cavity is ≤5 cm in diameter and the abscess is superficial, puncture and abscess aspiration may be more advantageous than the minimally invasive rotatory resection plus catheter drainage. When the abscess cavity is >5 cm in diameter and there are multiple abscesses or deep large abscess, the efficacy of minimally invasive rotary resection plus catheter drainage may be better than the puncture and abscess aspiration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.