Retrospective cohort study of SCOUT system shows improved localization and reduced complications in non-palpable breast lesions.
Background: Preoperative localization of non-palpable breast lesions is critical for accurate resection and margin control in breast-conserving surgery. Traditional methods, such as wire or radioguided localization, have limitations in terms of logistics, patient comfort, and procedural flexibility. SCOUT® is a wireless, radar-based alternative that may improve surgical precision and workflow. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 427 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery after preoperative localization using the SCOUT® system between January 2023 and May 2024 at a tertiary academic hospital. Variables included lesion type, location, neoadjuvant treatment, device detection, seed deactivation, MRI interference, margin status, and reoperation rate. Results: The mean age was 58 years (SD 12.7), with malignant pathology in 88.5% of cases. SCOUT® achieved a 100% detection rate in axillary localizations and 98.1% in breast lesions. Seed deactivation occurred in 1.17% of cases, all successfully managed intraoperatively. MRI artefacts were observed in 1.59% of patients, without diagnostic interference. Positive margins were reported in 8.3% of cases, representing an improvement compared with the institution’s historical 12% rate, with 5.9% requiring reoperation. The device remained functional after neoadjuvant therapy in all applicable cases. Conclusions: SCOUT® demonstrated high detection rates, low complication incidence, and reduced positive margin rates, supporting its reliability for the localization of non-palpable breast lesions. These findings reinforce SCOUT® as an effective alternative to conventional localization techniques, with potential to optimize breast-conserving surgery and reduce reoperations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Puente‐Monserrat et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: