Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient characteristics and findings after mammary ductoscopy in an effort to reduce the pain experienced during the procedure. Patients and Methods: We evaluated outpatients in whom mammary ductoscopy was performed under local or intraductal anesthesia without preference, and their clinical characteristics and findings were recorded. Average and maximum pain scores were determined after the examination for statistical analysis. Results: The overall average pain score was 3.74 ± 1.353, and the maximum pain score was 6.40 ± 1.681. The type of anesthesia, total operation time, nipple retraction, and discharge status significantly correlated with the pain score. Intraductal anesthesia lowered the average pain score by 0.60, whereas a total procedure time greater than 12 min increased the average pain score by 0.956. The pain score decreased if patients had nipple retraction, and intraductal anesthesia proved suitable for patients with normal nipples. Conclusion: Intraductal anesthesia is suitable for most patients, and ductoscopy should not exceed 12 min to minimize the pain. Nipple retraction does not significantly increase pain, but local anesthesia should be used in patients with retracted nipples. Patient age, breastfeeding history, menstrual stage, and presence of intraductal tumors were not associated with the level of pain experienced.

Journal Section:
Original Article
Keywords:
Mammary ductoscopy, Intraductal anesthesia, Nipple retraction
1.
Dooley WC: Breast ductoscopy and the evolution of the intra-ductal approach to breast cancer. Breast J 2009;15(suppl 1):S90-94.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00799.x
2.
Tang SS, Twelves DJ, Isacke CM, Gui GP: Mammary ductoscopy in the current management of breast disease. Surg Endosc 2011;25:1712-1722.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1465-4
3.
Adduci KM, Annis CE, DeVries S, Chew KL, Boutin J, Magrane G, Ljung BM, Waldman FM, Esserman LJ: Fluorescence in situ hybridization of ductal lavage samples identifies malignant phenotypes from cytologically normal cells in women with breast cancer. Cancer 2007;111:185-191.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22690
4.
Carruthers CD, Chapleskie LA, Flynn MB, Frazier TG: The use of ductal lavage as a screening tool in women at high risk for developing breast carcinoma. Am J Surg 2007;194:463-466.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.06.020
5.
Chatterton RT, Jr., Parker NP, Habe-Evans M, Bryk M, Scholtens DM, Khan SA: Breast ductal lavage for assessment of breast cancer biomarkers. Horm Cancer 2010;1:197-204.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-010-0021-y
6.
Cyr AE, Margenthaler JA, Conway J, Rastelli AL, Davila RM, Gao F, Dietz JR: Correlation of ductal lavage cytology with ductoscopy-directed duct excision histology in women at high risk for developing breast cancer: a prospective, single-institution trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:3192-3197.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1963-1
7.
Bender O, Balci FL, Yuney E, Akbulut H: Scarless 14 endoscopic papillomectomy of the breast. Onkologie 2009;32:94-98.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1159/000195694
8.
Al Sarakbi W, Worku D, Escobar PF, Mokbel K: Breast papillomas: current management with a focus on a new diagnostic and therapeutic modality. Int Semin Surg Oncol 2006;3:1.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7800-3-1
9.
Going JJ, Moffat DF: Escaping from flatland: clinical and biological aspects of human mammary duct anatomy in three dimensions. J Pathol 2004; 203:538-544.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1002/path.1556
10.
Taneri F, Kurukahvecioglu O, Akyurek N, Tekin EH, Ilhan MN, Cifter C, Bozkurt S, Dursun A, Bayram O, Onuk E: Microanatomy of milk ducts in the nipple. Eur Surg Res 2006;38:545-549.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1159/000096775
11.
Tondre J, Nejad M, Casano A, Mills D, Love S: Technical enhancements to breast ductal lavage. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:2734-2738.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0060-6
12.
Zografos GC, Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Gounaris A, Pararas N, Oikonomou V, Panopoulou E, Fotiadis C, Bramis J: Evaluation of pain experienced during breast ductal endoscopy. Surg Today 19 2008;38:886-889.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-007-3725-z
13.
Hamed ST, Abdo MH, Ahmed HH: Breast discharge: ultrasound and Doppler evaluation. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 2008;20:262-270.
[PubMed]
14.
Kamali S, Bender O, Kamali GH, Aydin MT, Karatepe O, Yuney E: Diagnostic and therapeutic value of ductoscopy in nipple discharge and intraductal proliferations compared with standard methods. Breast Cancer 2014;21:154-161.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0377-7
15.
Khan SA, Wolfman JA, Segal L, Benjamin S, Nayar R, Wiley EL, Bryk M, Morrow M: Ductal lavage findings in women with mammographic microcalcifications undergoing biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:689-696.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2005.04.037
16.
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: ‘Minimental state'. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189-198.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
17.
Endicott J, Spitzer RL: A diagnostic interview: the schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1978;35:837-844.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770310043002
18.
Loud JT, Beckjord EB, Nichols K, Peters J, Giusti R, Greene MH: Tolerability of breast ductal lavage in women from families at high genetic risk of breast cancer. BMC Womens Health 2009;9:20.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-9-20
19.
Zografos GC, Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Oikonomou V, Fotou M, Nonni A, Patsouris E: Ductal endoscopy of the breast: more painful at the luteal phase? Pain Pract 2009;9:221-224.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-2500.2009.00273.x
© 2014 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2014
You do not currently have access to this content.