Comparing The Effectiveness And Use Of Active Versus Closed Passive Drains In Post-Auchincloss Mastectomy Seroma Prevention In Female Breast Cancer Patients At The University Of Benin Teaching Hospital
Keywords:
Seroma, Suction drain, Passive drain, Auchincloss, MastectomyAbstract
Background: Seroma formation is a surgical challenge to most contemporary breast surgeons. It increases post-operative morbidity and hospital stay after modified radical mastectomy especially in low resource countries where active drains are not readily available or affordable.
Aim: To compare the effectiveness and use of active versus closed passive drains in preventing post-Auchincloss mastectomy seroma in female breast cancer patients at the University of Benin Teaching Hospital.
Methods: 48 operable breast cancer patients who had Auchincloss modified radical mastectomy were randomized into two groups to have suction drain (group A) and closed passive drain (group B). The suction drain was a size 18FG Romovac closed wound suction unit. The passive drain was an improvised drain fashioned by fenestrating 10 outlets on a size 18FG nasogastric tube connected to a drainage bag. The data was collected with a structured questionnaire and analyzed using SPSS version 22. P-value <0.05 was considered significant.
Results: The mean ages were 47.1 ± 10.9 and 45.9 ± 10.0 (P=0.691) for groups A and B respectively. The duration of drainage was comparable in both groups, 10.3 ± 3.2 and 9.0 ± 2.1 (P=0.118) for groups A and B respectively. Seroma formation occurred in 1 patient (4.2%) in group A and B respectively. Wound infection occurred in 3 patients (12.5%) and 4 patients (16.7%) in groups A and B respectively (P=1.000).
Conclusion: Closed passive drain is as effective as suction drain. The former is readily available and reproducible, and it may be an alternative appliance for the prevention of post-mastectomy seroma in low resource countries.
References
References
Łukasiewicz S, Czeczelewski M, Forma A, Baj J, Sitarz R, Stanisławek A. Breast cancer- epidemiology, risk factors, classification, prognostic markers, and current treatment strategies—an updated review. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13 (17): 4287
Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Newman LA, Freedman RA, Smith RA, Star J, et al. Breast cancer statistics 2024. CA Cancer J Clin 2024; 74 (6): 477 - 495
Wang J, Wu SG. Breast cancer: an overview of current therapeutic strategies, challenge, and perspectives. Breast Cancer 2023; 15: 721-730
Bawoke G, Kejela S, Alemayehu A, Bogale GT. Experience with modified radical mastectomy in a low-income country: a multi-center prospective observational study. BMC surg 2021; 21(1): 1-8
Garzali IU, El-Yakub AI. Factors affecting seroma formation after mastectomy among West African patients: a single center experience in North West Nigeria. PAMJ-clin med 2020; 3: 174
Stoyanov GS, Tsocheva D, Marinova K, Dobrev E, Nenkov R. Drainage after modified radical mastectomy–A methodological mini-review. Cureus 2017; 9 (7): 1454
Granzier RW, Van Bastelaar J, Van Kuijk SM, Hintzen KF, Heymans C, Theunissen LL, et al. Reducing seroma formation and its sequelae after mastectomy by closure of the dead space: the interim analysis of a multi-center, double-blind randomized controlled trial (SAM trial). Breast 2019; 46: 81-86
De Rooij L, Bosmans JWAM, Van Kuijk SMJ, Vissers YLJ, Beets GL, Van Bastelaar J. A systematic review of seroma formation following drain-free mastectomy. Eur J of Surg Oncol 2021; 47 (4):757-763
Pogson C, Adwani A, Ebbs S. Seroma following breast cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29(9): 711 – 717.
Kuroi K, Shimozuma K, Taguchi T, Imai H, Yamashiro H, Ohsumi S, et al. Evidence-based risk factors for seroma formation in breast surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2006; 36(4): 197- 206.
Vitug AF, Newman LA. Complications in breast surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2007;87(2):431-451.
Troost MS, Kempees CJ, de Roos MAJ. Breast cancer surgery without drains: no influence on seroma formation. Int J Surg 2015; 13: 170-174
Baker E, Piper J. Drainless mastectomy: Is it safe and effective? Surgeon 2017; 15(5): 267-271
Ezeome ER, Adebamowo CA. Closed suction drainage versus closed simple drainage in the management of modified radical mastectomy wounds. S Afr Med J 2008;98(9):712-715.
Hashemi E, Kaviani A, Najafi M, Ebrahimi M, Hooshmand H, Montazeri A. Seroma formation after surgery for breast cancer. World J Surg Oncol 2004; 2: 44.
Yusufu L, Odigie V, Mohammed A. Breast masses in Zaria, Nigeria. Ann Afr med 2003; 2: 13-16
Karwasra RK, Srivastava S, Parshad S, Tripathi M, Arora B. A prospective randomized study on management of suction drains in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. Int. J. enhance. Res. Med. Dent. care 2015; 2(11): 9 -20
Morris AM. A controlled trial of closed wound suction drainage in radical mastectomy. Br J Surg 1973; 60(5): 357 – 359
Oommen A, Augustine T, Gopi E. Active versus passive drainage after modified radical mastectomy in breast cancer. Int Surg J 2018; 5(7): 2616 – 2619
Whitfield PC, Rainsbury RM. Suction versus siphon drainage after axillary surgery for breast cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Br J Surg 1994; 81(4): 547
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of the Nigerian Surgical Research Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
