Treatments for Periductal Mastitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Introduction: Periductal mastitis (PDM) is a complex benign breast disease with a prolonged course and a high risk of recurrence after treatment. There are many available treatments for PDM, but none is widely accepted. This study aims to evaluate the various treatment failure rates (TFR) of different invasive treatment measures by looking at recurrence and persistence after treatment. In this way, it sets out to inform better clinical decisions in the treatment of PDM. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for eligible studies about different treatment regimens provided to PDM patients that had been published before October 1, 2019. We included original studies written in English that reported the recurrence and/or persistence rates of each therapy. Outcomes were presented as pooled TFR and 95% CI for the TFR. Results: We included 27 eligible studies involving 1,066 patients in this study. We summarized 4 groups and 10 subgroups of PDM treatments, according to the published studies. Patients treated minimally invasively (group 1) were subdivided into 3 subgroups and pooled TFR were calculated as follows: incision and drainage (n = 73; TFR = 75.6%; 95% CI 27.3–100%), incision alone (n = 74; TFR = 20.1%; 95% CI 0–59.9%), and breast duct irrigation (n = 123; TFR = 19.4%; 95% CI 0–65.0%). Patients treated with a minor excision (excision of the infected tissue and related duct; group 2) were divided into 4 subgroups and pooled TFR were calculated as follows: wound packing alone (n = 127; TFR = 2.1%; 95% CI 0–5.2%), primary closure alone (n = 66; TFR = 37.1%; 95% CI 9.5–64.8%), primary closure under antibiotic treatment cover (n = 55; TFR = 4.8%; 95% CI 0–11.4%) , and additional nipple part removal (n = 232; TFR = 9.6%; 95% CI 5.8–13.4%). Patients treated with a major excision (excision of the infected tissue and the major duct; group 3) included the following 2 subgroups: patients treated with a circumareolar incision (n = 142; TFR = 7.5%; 95% CI 0.4–14.7%) and patients treated with a radial incision of the breast (n = 78; TFR = 0.6%; 95% CI 0–3.6%). Group 4 contained patients receiving different major plastic surgeries. The pooled TFR of this group (n = 86) was 3.4% (95% CI 0–7.5%). Conclusion: Breast duct irrigation, which is the most minimally invasive of all of the treatment options, seemed to yield good outcomes and may be the first-line treatment for PDM patients. Minor excision methods, except for primary closure alone, might be enough for most PDM patients. Major excision, especially with radial incision, was a highly effective salvage therapy. The major plastic surgery technique was also acceptable as an alternative treatment for patients with large lesions and concerns about breast appearance. Incision and drainage and minor excision with primary closure alone should be avoided for PDM patients. Further research is still needed to better understand the etiology and pathogenesis of PDM and explore more effective treatments for this disease.