Breast CancerNCT04985552
ciNPT in Autologous Abdominal Tissue Breast Reconstruction
A study testing DIEP Breast Reconstruction, ciNPT and Conventional Tape Dressings in people with Breast Cancer, run by McMaster University.
Trial summary
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). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Breast Cancer
- What is being tested?
- DIEP Breast Reconstruction, ciNPT and Conventional Tape Dressings
- Type of treatment
- Medical device, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 24 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Oct 2021to Oct 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 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
Who cannot join
- patients who are pregnant
- have a documented/reported allergy to adhesive dressings
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
Official title: Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy Compared to Conventional Dressing Following Autologous Abdominal Tissue Breast Reconstruction: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial
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.
Read more
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:
- Eligibility: At least 90% of screened patients will be eligible.
- 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.
- Retention: At least 85% of randomized patients will complete the study, defined as completion of 12-month follow-up
- Conditions
- Breast Cancer
- Being tested
- DIEP Breast Reconstruction, ciNPT, Conventional Tape Dressings
- Medical subject headings
- Breast Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
DIEP Breast ReconstructionProcedure or surgery
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.
ciNPTDevice
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 dressings will be applied to the abdominal incision unless clinically indicated secondary to dehiscence.
Conventional Tape DressingsOther
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 be applied unless clinically indicated secondary to dehiscence.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| ciNPT | Experimental | Not described Receives: Procedure: DIEP Breast Reconstruction; Device: ciNPT |
| Conventional tape dressings | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Procedure: DIEP Breast Reconstruction; Other: Conventional Tape Dressings |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percentage of Patient Eligibility - Study Feasibility
The percentage of patients that are eligible for the study among those that are screened will be recorded. This criteria will be determined to be feasible if at least 90% of screened patients are deemed to be eligible.
Measured: 12 months
Percentage of Patient Recruitment - Study Feasibility
The percentage of patients that are enrolled in the study among those determined to be eligible will be recorded. To be considered fully enrolled patients must sign the informed consent form, complete baseline demographic questionnaires, and be randomized to a study arm. This criteria will be determined to be feasible if at least 85% of eligible patients are recruited.
Measured: 12 months
Percentage of Patient Retention - Study Feasibility
The percentage of patients that complete the study among those that are randomized will be recorded. Completion of the study will be defined as completion of 12 month follow-up questionnaires. This criteria will be determined to be feasible if at least 85% of randomized patients complete the study.
As per Thabane et al., the investigators will collate the results of all three of the aforementioned primary outcomes to determine study eligibility. If all three criteria are met, the authors will decide that the study is feasible and continue without modifications. If one or more criteria is not met, the investigators will either decide to:
Stop - main study not feasible, or Continue, but modify protocol - feasible with modifications, or Continue without modifications, but monitor closely - feasible with close monitoring
Measured: 12 months
Secondary outcomes (6)
Percentage of participants with Abdominal Wall Dehiscence
the between-group difference in the incidence of abdominal wound dehiscence- 'wound dehiscence' will be defined as the partial or full-thickness separation of the abdominal wound incision necessitating routine dressing changes, surgical debridement, or revision of the abdominal incision
Measured: 4 weeks
Percentage of participants with Seroma Formation
seroma formation - defined by the presence of a symptomatic, subcutaneous fluid collection (diagnosed clinically or by ultrasound per clinician judgement)
Measured: 4 weeks
Percentage of participants with Surgical Site Infection
surgical site infection - necessitating antibiotic administration (diagnosed clinically or by wound swab)
Measured: 4 weeks
5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L) - Patient Quality of Life
The EQ-5D-5L essentially consists of 2 pages: the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). This scale is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure overall health status. The EQ-5D measures 5 health states measured from 1-5, with 1 being the best and 5 being the worst. An overall score can be generated from this with the best health at the minimum score of 5, and the worst health state at the maximum score of 25. The EQ VAS is an analogue scale from 0-100, with 100 being the best health and 0 being the worst health that you can imagine.
Measured: 12 months
BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen - Patient Quality of Life
The BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure the negative physical sequelae of the abdomen following autologous tissue reconstruction. Total scores are converted to an equivalent Rasch transformed score from 0 to 100. 0 represents the worst outcome and 100 represents the best outcome.
Measured: 12 months
SCAR-Q - Patient Quality of Life
The BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure the the appearance, symptoms, and psychosocial impact of scars. Total scores are converted to an equivalent Rasch transformed score from 0 to 100. 0 represents the worst outcome and 100 represents the best outcome.
Measured: 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Aug 2021
- Study startOct 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completionOct 2022 (estimated)
- Study completionOct 2022 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (17)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Breast CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- McMaster University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04985552
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 13155
- Status last verified
- Jun 2021
- First submitted
- 5 Jul 2021
- Last updated
- 2 Aug 2021
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
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.
PubMed 29369109Chang 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.
PubMed 29794640Muller-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.
PubMed 30126630Lindenblatt 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.
PubMed 31538064Thacoor 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.
PubMed 29910106Nelson 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.
PubMed 25557724Sandy-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.
PubMed 26447018Wilkes 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.
PubMed 21868417Hyldig N, Birke-Sorensen H, Kruse M, Vinter C, Joergensen JS, Sorensen JA, Mogensen O, Lamont RF, Bille C. Meta-analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions. Br J Surg. 2016 Apr;103(5):477-86. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10084.
PubMed 26994715Tran BNN, Johnson AR, Shen C, Lee BT, Lee ES. Closed-Incision Negative-Pressure Therapy Efficacy in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction in High-Risk Patients: A Meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2019 Sep;241:63-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.03.033. Epub 2019 Apr 19.
PubMed 31009887Siegwart LC, Sieber L, Fischer S, Maraka S, Kneser U, Kotsougiani-Fischer D. Influence of closed incision negative-pressure therapy on abdominal donor-site morbidity in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2022 Jan;42(1):32-39. doi: 10.1002/micr.30683. Epub 2020 Nov 17.
PubMed 33201541Little RJ, D'Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT, Frangakis C, Hogan JW, Molenberghs G, Murphy SA, Neaton JD, Rotnitzky A, Scharfstein D, Shih WJ, Siegel JP, Stern H. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4;367(14):1355-60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1203730. No abstract available.
PubMed 23034025Whitehead AL, Julious SA, Cooper CL, Campbell MJ. Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Jun;25(3):1057-73. doi: 10.1177/0962280215588241. Epub 2015 Jun 19.
PubMed 26092476Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, Thabane L, Hopewell S, Coleman CL, Bond CM. Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework. PLoS One. 2016 Mar 15;11(3):e0150205. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150205. eCollection 2016.
PubMed 26978655Thoma A, Avram R, Dal Cin A, Murphy J, Duku E, Xie F. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Abdominal-based Autogenous Tissue and Tissue-expander Implant following Mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Apr 11;8(10):e2986. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002986. eCollection 2020 Oct.
PubMed 33173657
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Aug 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy Compared to Conventional Dressing Following Autologous Abdominal Tissue Breast Reconstruction: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04985552
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 13155
- Conditions
- Breast Cancer
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- McMaster UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Oct 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Oct 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Oct 2022 (estimated)
- First posted
- 2 Aug 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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:
- Eligibility: At least 90% of screened patients will be eligible.
- 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.
- Retention: At least 85% of randomized patients will complete the study, defined as completion of 12-month follow-up
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| ciNPT | Experimental | Procedure: DIEP Breast Reconstruction, Device: ciNPT |
| Conventional tape dressings | Active comparator | Procedure: DIEP Breast Reconstruction, Other: Conventional Tape Dressings |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- 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
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- patients who are pregnant
- have a documented/reported allergy to adhesive dressings
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| DIEP Breast ReconstructionAll 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. | Procedure or surgery | Conventional tape dressings, ciNPT |
| ciNPTFollowing 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 dressings will be applied to the abdominal incision unless clinically indicated secondary to dehiscence. | Device | ciNPT |
| Conventional Tape DressingsFollowing 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 be applied unless clinically indicated secondary to dehiscence. | Other | Conventional tape dressings |
Primary outcome
Percentage of Patient Eligibility - Study Feasibility
Time frame: 12 months
The percentage of patients that are eligible for the study among those that are screened will be recorded. This criteria will be determined to be feasible if at least 90% of screened patients are deemed to be eligible.
Percentage of Patient Recruitment - Study Feasibility
Time frame: 12 months
The percentage of patients that are enrolled in the study among those determined to be eligible will be recorded. To be considered fully enrolled patients must sign the informed consent form, complete baseline demographic questionnaires, and be randomized to a study arm. This criteria will be determined to be feasible if at least 85% of eligible patients are recruited.
Percentage of Patient Retention - Study Feasibility
Time frame: 12 months
The percentage of patients that complete the study among those that are randomized will be recorded. Completion of the study will be defined as completion of 12 month follow-up questionnaires. This criteria will be determined to be feasible if at least 85% of randomized patients complete the study. As per Thabane et al., the investigators will collate the results of all three of the aforementioned primary outcomes to determine study eligibility. If all three criteria are met, the authors will decide that the study is feasible and continue without modifications. If one or more criteria is not met, the investigators will either decide to: Stop - main study not feasible, or Continue, but modify protocol - feasible with modifications, or Continue without modifications, but monitor closely - feasible with close monitoring
6 secondary outcomes
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
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Aug 2021.
- Background: PubMed 29369109Leyngold 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.
- Background: PubMed 29794640Chang 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.
- Background: PubMed 30126630Muller-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.
- Background: PubMed 31538064Lindenblatt 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.
- Background: PubMed 29910106Thacoor 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.
- Background: PubMed 25557724Nelson 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.
- Background: PubMed 26447018Sandy-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.
- Background: PubMed 21868417Wilkes 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.
- Background: PubMed 26994715Hyldig N, Birke-Sorensen H, Kruse M, Vinter C, Joergensen JS, Sorensen JA, Mogensen O, Lamont RF, Bille C. Meta-analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions. Br J Surg. 2016 Apr;103(5):477-86. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10084.
- Background: PubMed 31009887Tran BNN, Johnson AR, Shen C, Lee BT, Lee ES. Closed-Incision Negative-Pressure Therapy Efficacy in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction in High-Risk Patients: A Meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2019 Sep;241:63-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.03.033. Epub 2019 Apr 19.
- Background: PubMed 33201541Siegwart LC, Sieber L, Fischer S, Maraka S, Kneser U, Kotsougiani-Fischer D. Influence of closed incision negative-pressure therapy on abdominal donor-site morbidity in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2022 Jan;42(1):32-39. doi: 10.1002/micr.30683. Epub 2020 Nov 17.
- Background: PubMed 23034025Little RJ, D'Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT, Frangakis C, Hogan JW, Molenberghs G, Murphy SA, Neaton JD, Rotnitzky A, Scharfstein D, Shih WJ, Siegel JP, Stern H. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4;367(14):1355-60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1203730. No abstract available.
- The World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) defines surgical wound dehiscence as "all degrees of separation of the margins of a closed surgical incision".Link provided by the sponsor.
- Related InfoLink provided by the sponsor.
- EQ-5D-5LLink provided by the sponsor.
- BREAST-QLink provided by the sponsor.
- SCAR-QLink provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Breast Cancer
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Tamoxifen Citrate or Z-Endoxifen Hydrochloride in Treating Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic, Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer
Recurrent Breast Carcinoma, Stage III Breast Cancer AJCC v7
RecruitingPhase 1/2
A Study to Evaluate the Effect of GDC-4198 Alone and in Combination With Giredestrant Versus Abemaciclib and Giredestrant in Participants With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Estrogen Receptor-Positive (ER+), Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Negative (HER2-) Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer
Not yet recruiting
Podcast-Based Psychosocial Support for Women Newly Diagnosed With Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer
Recruiting
A Study of Skipping Radiation Therapy in People With Breast Cancer
HER2-positive Breast Cancer, Breast Cancer
Active, not recruiting
Dance Study for Post-surgical Pain in Breast Cancer Survivors
Breast Cancer, Survivorship
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing DIEP Breast Reconstruction, ciNPT and Conventional Tape Dressings in people with Breast Cancer, run by McMaster University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Aug 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Sophocles Voineskos, MD, MSc (905-522-1155 ext. 34011, sophocles.voineskos@medportal.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percentage of Patient Eligibility - Study Feasibility (time frame: 12 months). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04985552, which also lists 17 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Aug 2021.