Mastopexy With Autologous Augmentation in Women After Massive Weight Loss - A Clinical, Randomized Study

NCT ID: NCT02572271

Last Updated: 2018-08-22

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

22 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2015-09-30

Study Completion Date

2017-11-16

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The purpose of this study is to compare two different techniques of mastopexy with autologous augmentation, the Lower Pole Subglandular Advancement Mastoplasty (LOPOSAM) and Rubins Mastopexy with autologous augmentation, in massive weight loss patients to see if one technique is superior to the other.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

In Massive Weight Loss (MWL) patients the breasts often appear deflated following the prominent volume decrease. The breast is not only deflated, the supportive fibrous tissue is lax and the structural properties have changed. In the typical patient the breast base has sunk along with the inframammary crease and the shape of the breast is wide and flat with a significant ptosis.

One way of helping these women is to offer a mastopexy with autologous augmentation. There are several different surgical techniques for treating the ptotic and deflated breast in MWL patients.

In this study the investigators compare the investigators own technique, LOPOSAM, with Rubins Mastopexy with autologous augmentation.

In Rubins Mastopexy, an extensive re-arrangement of the skin, fat and breast tissue is done and this is supposed to give good long term results. The procedure is however time consuming and extensive.

The LOPOSAM technique is less extensive and therefore less time consuming and the investigators hypothesis is therefore that the technique has a lower complication rate.

Women that is referred for mastopexy after MWL and meet the criteria for post bariatric surgery, set by the Danish National Board of Health, and is found to be a suitable candidate for mastopexy with autologous augmentation is invited to participate in the study.

Sample size assessment has shown that 22 women (11 in each group) is needed and this number of patients is expected to be recruited in 6-9 months.

The study design is a prospective randomized trial.

Preoperative breast measurements and clinical photographs will be compared with measurements and clinical photographs at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperative

The primary outcome is operation time but secondary outcomes include economics, breast measurements, cosmetic result and complication rates.

With this trial, the investigators hope to demonstrate whether or not one of the two techniques is superior to the other and therefore should be the preferred technique.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Weight Loss

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Rubins Mastopexy

Patients are allocated to a mastopexy using Rubins technique

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Rubins Mastopexy

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

The surgical technique described by Rubin is performed. No other intervention.

LOPOSAM

Patients are allocated to a mastopexy using the LOPOSAM technique

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

LOPOSAM

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

The surgical technique LOPOSAM is performed. No other intervention.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Rubins Mastopexy

The surgical technique described by Rubin is performed. No other intervention.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

LOPOSAM

The surgical technique LOPOSAM is performed. No other intervention.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Women that meet the Danish National Board of Health criteria for post bariatric surgery, and is found to be a suitable candidate for autologous augmentation

Exclusion Criteria

* Severe dementia, making informed consent impossible
* Non-Danish speaking
Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Odense University Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Peder Ikander

MD

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Peder Ikander, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Odense University Hospital, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Odense C, , Denmark

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Denmark

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Rubin JP. Mastopexy after massive weight loss: dermal suspension and total parenchymal reshaping. Aesthet Surg J. 2006 Mar-Apr;26(2):214-22. doi: 10.1016/j.asj.2006.01.010.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19338902 (View on PubMed)

Rubin JP, Khachi G. Mastopexy after massive weight loss: dermal suspension and selective auto-augmentation. Clin Plast Surg. 2008 Jan;35(1):123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2007.08.008.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 18061806 (View on PubMed)

Gusenoff JA, Rubin JP. Plastic surgery after weight loss: current concepts in massive weight loss surgery. Aesthet Surg J. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4):452-5. doi: 10.1016/j.asj.2008.06.001.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19083561 (View on PubMed)

Rubin JP, Gusenoff JA, Coon D. Dermal suspension and parenchymal reshaping mastopexy after massive weight loss: statistical analysis with concomitant procedures from a prospective registry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Mar;123(3):782-789. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31819ba1a8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19319040 (View on PubMed)

Thoma A, Kaur MN, Tsoi B, Ziolkowski N, Duku E, Goldsmith CH. Cost-effectiveness analysis parallel to a randomized controlled trial comparing vertical scar reduction and inverted T-shaped reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Dec;134(6):1093-1107. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000751.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25255113 (View on PubMed)

Hansson E, Manjer J, Ringberg A. Inter-observer reliability of clinical measurement of suprasternal notch-nipple distance and breast ptosis. Indian J Plast Surg. 2014 Jan;47(1):61-4. doi: 10.4103/0970-0358.129625.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24987206 (View on PubMed)

Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Aug;124(2):345-353. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee807.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19644246 (View on PubMed)

Fischer JP, Cleveland EC, Shang EK, Nelson JA, Serletti JM. Complications following reduction mammaplasty: a review of 3538 cases from the 2005-2010 NSQIP data sets. Aesthet Surg J. 2014 Jan 1;34(1):66-73. doi: 10.1177/1090820X13515676. Epub 2013 Dec 13.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24334499 (View on PubMed)

Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Wild T, Krois W, Fitzal F. Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Jul;116(1):149-52. doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0173-4. Epub 2008 Sep 7.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 18777134 (View on PubMed)

Godwin Y, Barron EJ, Edmunds MC, Meyer M, Bardsley A, Logan AM, O'Neill TJ, Wood SH. A comparison of the patient and surgeon opinion on the long-term aesthetic outcome of reduction mammaplasty: have we improved over 15 years? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014 Jul;67(7):932-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.04.006. Epub 2014 May 9.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24860932 (View on PubMed)

Related Links

Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

S-20150106CKH/bss

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.