ciNPT in Autologous Abdominal Tissue Breast Reconstruction

Official title

Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy Compared to Conventional Dressing Following Autologous Abdominal Tissue Breast Reconstruction: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial

Overview

In women who undergo mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer, autologous reconstruction using the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is a common surgical procedure that aims to restore both the appearance and texture of the breast(s). Specifically, this requires the transfer of skin, fat, and perforator vessels from the abdomen to a recipient artery and vein in the chest to create a viable breast mound. Post-operatively, the abdominal donor site is routinely monitored for wound dehiscence, which has a reported incidence of up to 39% in this patient population; however, this incidence typically varies from 3.5% to 14%. At the investigators' academic institution, patients who undergo DIEP breast reconstruction typically have closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) or traditional tape dressings applied to the closed abdominal donor site. These dressings are selected according to surgeon preference and typically remain in-situ until hospital discharge. As there remains clinical equipoise regarding the ability of ciNPT to reduce abdominal wound dehiscence, further research in the form of a parallel, two-arm RCT is warranted. The investigators propose a pilot study comparing ciNPT to standard tape dressings to the abdominal donor site incision for patients undergoing autologous DIEP breast reconstruction. As a pilot trial, the primary objective of the study is to assess feasibility outcomes. The design and conduct of the proposed pilot study will mirror the methodology of the definitive trial including randomization, interventions, and clinical outcomes. The secondary objective of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes comparing ciNPT to standard tape dressings applied to the abdominal donor site incision. Clinical outcomes will include: 1) the incidence of abdominal wound dehiscence at 4 weeks following DIEP breast reconstruction; 2) the incidence of seroma formation and surgical site infection at 4 weeks; 3) quality of life as measured by BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen and EQ-5D-5L pre-operatively, 1-month, 6-months, and 12-months postoperatively; 4) Scar appearance as measured by the SCAR-Q at 12-months postoperatively. The pilot RCT will demonstrate feasibility of a definitive trial comparing ciNPT to standard tape dressings for the abdominal donor site of patients undergoing DIEP breast reconstruction. A priori hypotheses for each feasibility outcome will be: 1. Eligibility: At least 90% of screened patients will be eligible. 2. Recruitment: At least 85% of eligible patients will be enrolled. To be considered fully enrolled patients must sign the informed consent form, complete baseline demographic questionnaires, and be randomized to a study arm. 3. Retention: At least 85% of randomized patients will complete the study, defined as completion of 12-month follow-up

Interventions

• Procedure DIEP Breast Reconstruction
  All patients enrolled in the study will undergo DIEP breast reconstruction and have their abdominal incision sutured according to routine clinical practice: 3-0 VICRYL ® suture (Ethicon, USA) for deep fascia closure, 4-0 MONOCRYL® suture (Ethicon, USA) for deep dermal closure, and 5-0 MONOCRYL® suture (Ethicon, USA) for subcuticular closure.
• Device ciNPT
  Following closure of the abdominal donor site, the closed incision will be dressed with the ciNPT system \[V.A.C.ULTA™ Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System (KCI, USA)\] applied by the operating surgeon in a sterile fashion. The ciNPT device will be set at -125mmHg of continuous negative pressure for a period of 7 days or until patient discharge from hospital. Removal of the ciNPT dressing will be performed by the surgical team at the time of discharge. Following removal, no additional dressing
• Other Conventional Tape Dressings
  Following closure of the abdominal donor site, the closed abdominal incision will be dressed with 1-inch Micropore™ Surgical Tape (3M, USA) with an alcohol swab applied to the tape for additional adhesion, by the operating surgeon in a sterile fashion. This dressing will remain in-situ for up to 7 days or until patient discharge from hospital. Removal of the traditional tape dressing will be performed by the surgical team at the time of discharge. Following removal, no additional dressings will

Primary outcome measures

• Percentage of Patient Eligibility - Study Feasibility [Time frame: 12 months]
• Percentage of Patient Recruitment - Study Feasibility [Time frame: 12 months]
• Percentage of Patient Retention - Study Feasibility [Time frame: 12 months]

Secondary outcome measures (6)

• Percentage of participants with Abdominal Wall Dehiscence [Time frame: 4 weeks]
• Percentage of participants with Seroma Formation [Time frame: 4 weeks]
• Percentage of participants with Surgical Site Infection [Time frame: 4 weeks]
• 5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L) - Patient Quality of Life [Time frame: 12 months]
• BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen - Patient Quality of Life [Time frame: 12 months]
• SCAR-Q - Patient Quality of Life [Time frame: 12 months]

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

• adult female patients (≥ 18 years old)
• consent to elective immediate (i.e. performed at the time of mastectomy) or delayed (i.e. performed following mastectomy) breast reconstruction using the DIEP flap

Exclusion criteria

• patients who are pregnant
• have a documented/reported allergy to adhesive dressings

Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.

Healthy volunteers: Yes

Study design

Allocation

Randomized

Model

Parallel assignment

Masking

Single blind

Primary purpose

Treatment

Study locations

Center list to be confirmed — check the primary protocol.

Publications

• Leyngold MM. Is Unipedicled Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap Obsolete Owing to Superiority of DIEP Flap? Ann Plast Surg. 2018 Jun;80(6S Suppl 6):S418-S420. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001319. PMID 29369109
• Chang EI, Liu J. Prospective Evaluation of Obese Patients Undergoing Autologous Abdominal Free Flap Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Aug;142(2):120e-125e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004550. PMID 29794640
• Muller-Sloof E, de Laat HEW, Hummelink SLM, Peters JWB, Ulrich DJO. The effect of postoperative closed incision negative pressure therapy on the incidence of donor site wound dehiscence in breast reconstruction patients: DEhiscence PREvention Study (DEPRES), pilot randomized controlled trial. J Tissue Viability. 2018 Nov;27(4):262-266. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2018.08.005. Epub 2018 Aug 14. PMID 30126630
• Lindenblatt N, Gruenherz L, Farhadi J. A systematic review of donor site aesthetic and complications after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2019 Aug;8(4):389-398. doi: 10.21037/gs.2019.06.05. PMID 31538064
• Thacoor A, Kanapathy M, Torres-Grau J, Chana J. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap: Impact of drain free donor abdominal site on long term patient outcomes and duration of inpatient stay. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Aug;71(8):1103-1107. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.04.019. Epub 2018 May 22. PMID 29910106
• Nelson JA, Chung CU, Fischer JP, Kanchwala SK, Serletti JM, Wu LC. Wound healing complications after autologous breast reconstruction: a model to predict risk. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Apr;68(4):531-9. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.11.017. Epub 2014 Nov 28. PMID 25557724
• Sandy-Hodgetts K, Watts R. Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy/closed incision management in the prevention of post-surgical wound complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):253-303. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1687. PMID 26447018
• Wilkes RP, Kilpad DV, Zhao Y, Kazala R, McNulty A. Closed incision management with negative pressure wound therapy (CIM): biomechanics. Surg Innov. 2012 Mar;19(1):67-75. doi: 10.1177/1553350611414920. Epub 2011 Aug 25. PMID 21868417

Identifiers

NCT: NCT04985552 · 13155

Primary sources (government registries)

• ClinicalTrials.gov (US NIH)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗