Comparison of PEAK PlasmaBlade™ to Conventional Diathermy in Abdominal Based Free Flap Breast Reconstruction

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

108 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2016-10-31

Study Completion Date

2018-05-31

Brief Summary

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

Electrosurgery allows for dissection with simultaneous haemostasis. One of its disadvantages is that the heat production can cause injury to the surrounding tissue which may result in wound healing problems and an increased rate of seromas.

The PEAK PlasmaBlade™ (PPB) is a new electrosurgery device which may overcome this by having the ability to operate on a lower temperature, therefore reducing collateral thermal damage.

Different experimental studies in both animal and human models comparing the PEAK PlasmaBlade™ and other surgical dissection devices for incisions have shown a reduction in width of zone of thermal injury, reduction in wound inflammation, increased wound strength and reduced scaring in favour of the PEAK PlasmaBlade™ and comparable to scalpel incisions. A prospective clinical study published by Dogan et al. in 2013, including 46 consecutive breast cancer patients receiving a modified radical mastectomy either with the conventional diathermy (n=22) or the PEAK PlasmaBlade™ (n=24), showed a statistically significant reduction in wound fluid production (p=0.025), leading to earlier drain removal (p=0.020) in the PEAK PlasmaBlade™ group.

Comparable to oncological breast surgery, prolonged drain requirements for high wound fluid production and seromas are often experienced in the abdominal donor side after deep inferior epigastric perforator/ muscle sparing transverse rectus abdominis muscle flap (DIEP/MS-TRAM) breast reconstruction. To evaluate the effects of the PEAK PlasmaBlade™ for abdominal dissection in autologous breast reconstruction on wound fluid production and complications such a seroma, this double blinded randomised controlled clinical trial was conducted.

It was hypothesised the use of the PEAK PlasmaBlade™ for the harvest of the DIEP/ MS-TRAM flap would result in 1) a shorter abdominal drains requirement (days); 2) a lower total drainage volume (mL) from the abdominal drains; 3) lower levels of inflammatory cytokines in the drain fluid and 4) less and smaller seromas would be identified using ultrasound in the follow-up period.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

PEAK PlasmaBlade™ 4.0 Versus Traditional Electrosurgery in Mastectomy

NCT00943605

Mastectomy

TERMINATED NA

Post-Operative Outcomes of Low Thermal Dissection vs. Traditional Electrosurgery

NCT03711916

Breast Cancer Mastectomy Perfusion; Complications +1 more

COMPLETED NA

PEAK PlasmaBlade™ 4.0 Versus Traditional Electrosurgery in Lumpectomy

NCT00960154

Breast Cancer

TERMINATED NA

Study to Evaluate Surgical Excision Margins in Malignant Breast Lumpectomies With the PEAK PlasmaBlade

NCT00972010

Breast Cancer

COMPLETED

Cosmetic Outcome of Electrocautery, Scalpel and PEAK PlasmaBlade for Surgical Breast Incisions

NCT06191159

Wound Complication Surgical Wound Infection Post-operative Pain +2 more

RECRUITING NA

Detailed Description

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

The study was conducted between November 2016 and May 2018 in a single centre, St. Andrew's Centre for Plastic Surgery and Burns in Broomfield Hospital, in Chelmsford United Kingdom, including all immediate and delayed DIEP/MS-TRAM patients of two senior plastic surgeons, who agreed to participate and met the in-/exclusion criteria. All participants signed an informed consent. Randomisation was performed using the Trans European Network for Clinical Trials Service (TENALEA), which is an internet-based randomisation system. Patients were either allocated to the 'Group A - diathermy' or 'Group B - PEAK PlasmaBlade™. Blinding was broken after the last patient had completed the 6-week follow-up period.

All patients underwent a standardised DIEP or MS-TRAM breast reconstruction procedure. A scalpel was used to make the skin incision to the depth of the dermis. The raising of the flap was subsequently done either using the PEAK Plasma Blade™ or conventional diathermy. Before the abdominal closure two 15 French Blake drains were inserted and secured to the skin with a 2.0 Silk suture and connected to a low vacuum wound drainage system (85 kPa/neg 100mmHg). Every patient would wear an abdominal binder (9-inch, Marena) for 6 weeks post-operatively. Data on drain requirement, total daily abdominal drainage, pain, mobility and complications were collected during the inpatient stay. On day 0,1 and 2 also abdominal drain fluid was obtained. This was stored in labelled 1.5mL Eppendorf tubes in a -80°C freezer. The samples were sent to Myriad RBM, Inc. a clinical laboratory improvement amendments (CLIA) certified biomarker testing laboratory located in Austin, Texas (United States) for inflammatory cytokine analysis. Abdominal drains were removed when draining 30mL or less in 24 hours. Following discharge, patients were seen in the outpatient department after two and six weeks. At both follow-up appointments, data on complications were recorded. Also an abdominal ultrasound was performed using the V-Universal™ Stand portable ultrasound machine (SonoSite, Inc) to identify and measure abdominal seroma collections. Seromas were only aspirated if they were causing discomfort to the patient. After completion of the 6-week follow-up period patients were discharged from the study. All data were collected by the blinded principle study investigator and logged onto an electronic database.

Data from an in the investigator's unit conducted pilot study on drain requirement was used to perform a power calculation.This results in a minimal sample size of 53 patients for each group (106 overall).

Normal distribution was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test, following this continuous data was analysed using the independent sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U Test to identify a statistically significant difference between the two groups. All right skewed was log transformed, if this resulted in a normal distribution the independent samples t-test was used to determine statistical significance. For categorical data the Pearson Chi-Square Test for numbers over 5 was used. If the count was equal to or less than 5 the Fisher's Exact Test was used to determine statistical significance. A value below or equal to 0.05 (2-tailed) was considered to be statistically significant. Linear regression (Cox proportional hazard model) was used to identify significant determinants for the time to drain removal. Variables that had a significant p-value in the univariate analysis were included in a multivariable analysis. Significant determinants could indicate confounding factors for which would be corrected. Logistic regression was used to identify determinants for complications and the presence of seroma at the 2- and 6-week abdominal ultrasound scan. Variables that had a significant p-value in the univariate analysis were included in multivariable analysis, if none of the determinates were significant p values \<0.10 were included in the multivariable analysis. Significant determinants could indicate confounding factors for which would be corrected.

Conditions

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

Breast Reconstruction Breast Cancer

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

Patients randomised between having their procedure performed with one of two different electrosurgery devices

Primary Study Purpose

OTHER

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Investigators

Patients and investigator collecting data were both blinded for which machine was used

Study Groups

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

Conventional diathermy

DIEP/ MS-TRAM breast reconstruction free flap raise performed with conventional diathermy

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Conventional diathermy

Intervention Type DEVICE

Abdominal free flap raise performed with conventional diathermy. Settings: cutting 40 Watt, coagulation 40 Watt.

PEAK PlasmaBlade™

DIEP/ MS-TRAM breast reconstruction free flap raise performed with PEAK PlasmaBlade™

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

PEAK PlasmaBlade™

Intervention Type DEVICE

Abdominal free flap raise performed with PEAK PlasmaBlade™ Settings: cutting 7 (35 Watt), coagulation 7 (35 Watt)

Interventions

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

Conventional diathermy

Abdominal free flap raise performed with conventional diathermy. Settings: cutting 40 Watt, coagulation 40 Watt.

Intervention Type DEVICE

PEAK PlasmaBlade™

Abdominal free flap raise performed with PEAK PlasmaBlade™ Settings: cutting 7 (35 Watt), coagulation 7 (35 Watt)

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Adults between 18-80 years, able to consent
* Unilateral immediate or delayed DIEP/ MS-TRAM breast reconstruction
* BMI \>20

Exclusion Criteria

* Children (\<18 years) and adults older than 80 years
* Bilateral or bi-pedicled DIEP/MS-TRAM breast reconstruction
* BMI \<20
* Diabetic
* Immune-suppression
* Clotting disorders
* On steroid medication
* Pregnancy
* Active smoking

Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No