Impact of Drainless Donor Abdominal Site in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) Flap on Complications and Duration of Hospital Stay.

Overview

Inserting surgical drains is an ancient approach used across different specialties because of its many advantages such as discharge of fluid accumulation, appraising and qualifying drain capacities, lowering infection percentages, and eliminating dead space. Most commonly, abdominal closed-suction drains are used following autologous breast reconstruction with a DIEP flap to prevent donor site complications such as seroma, hematoma, and wound dehiscence. Although abdominal drains are effective in impeding accumulation, they are a potential portal for infection, Furthermore, they restrict patient mobility, are cumbersome, require time-consuming care upon discharge, potentially increase inpatient stay and ultimately resulting in impaired health-care costs. In the context of an Enhanced Rapid Protocol (ERP), not placing abdominal drains would be a step forward. This involves using \"quilting sutures\" to close the dead space after flap prelevation. Quilting sutures are placed between the subcutaneous tissues of the abdominal flap and the underlying fascia of the rectus abdominis muscle and aim to minimizes the shearing forces and collapse the death space without the use of drains. Progressive tension sutures were first described in 2000, in a retrospective paper on cosmetic abdominoplasty patients. Since then, their procedure has been analysed and adapted by many authors and applied in perforator-based abdominal flaps for breast reconstruction. Despite the drainless approach is well known in the literature for cosmetic abdominoplasty procedures, prospective clinical investigations to encourage the drainless approach in DIEP flap reconstruction is lacking. Therefore we want to set up a prospective study to make a comparison between the outcomes succeeding donor site closure after DIEP flap harvesting with (AD) or without (W-AD) the use of abdominal drains and investigate whether there is a correlation between the use of drains and the length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes involve the complication rate of seroma, hematoma, and dehiscence analysis of abdominal drain output and postoperative recovery, including pain and follow-up complications as described above.

Interventions

• Procedure DIEP flap surgery without drain
  Patients will undergo a breast reconstruction with a DIEP flap without the placement of drains.
• Procedure DIEP flap surgery with drains
  Patients will undergo a breast reconstruction with a DIEP flap with the placement of drains.

Primary outcome measures

• Length of stay (LOS) [Time frame: During admission to the hospital]

Secondary outcome measures (3)

• Complication rate [Time frame: from enrollment until study completion, an average of 1 year]
• Pain (VAS) [Time frame: from enrollment until study completion, an average of 1 year]
• Patient satisfaction (Breast Q) [Time frame: from enrollment until study completion, an average of 1 year]

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

• Written informed consent must be obtained prior to any screening procedures
• Gender: female
• Age \>18 years old
• Breast cancer for which mastectomy is planned (primary case) OR patient has already had mastectomy (secondary case)
• Wish to have a DIEP flap procedure (uni-or bilateral) for breast reconstruction
• Meets criteria for DIEP flap procedure (no previous open abdominal surgery)
• Pre- and postoperative smoking cessation of 3 months

Exclusion criteria

• Patient has history of open abdominal surgery wich compromises blood flow to DIEP flap
• Any disorder, which in the investigator's opinion might jeopardise participant's safety or compliance with the CIP.
• Female who is pregnant, breast-feeding or intends to become pregnant or is of child-bearing potential and not using an adequate contraceptive method.
• No informed consent
• Age \< 18 years old
• Currently smoking or cessation \<3 months preoperatively
• The use of immunosuppressive drugs
• Other ongoing therapies which might compromise normal postoperative course (e.g. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, …)

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

Healthy volunteers: No

Study design

Allocation

Randomized

Model

Parallel assignment

Masking

Open label

Primary purpose

Treatment

Study locations

Belgium · 1 center

• Uz Leuven — Leuven

Identifiers

NCT: NCT06468488 · S68700

Primary sources (government registries)

• ClinicalTrials.gov (US NIH)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗