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

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Lucas Gallo, Patrick Kim, Emily Dunn, Isabella Churchill, Morgan Yuan, Ronen Avram, Mark McRae, Achilleas Thoma, Christopher J Coroneos, Sophocles H Voineskos
{"title":"Closed-Incision Negative Pressure Therapy Compared to Conventional Dressing Following Autologous Abdominal Tissue Breast Reconstruction: The MACVAC Pilot Randomized Control Trial.","authors":"Lucas Gallo, Patrick Kim, Emily Dunn, Isabella Churchill, Morgan Yuan, Ronen Avram, Mark McRae, Achilleas Thoma, Christopher J Coroneos, Sophocles H Voineskos","doi":"10.1177/22925503251350926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> There is equipoise regarding the use of closed-incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) versus conventional dressings for abdominal incisions in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. The primary objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ciNPT versus conventional dressings for abdominal incisions in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. <b>Methods:</b> A parallel, between-group randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted at two academic breast reconstruction centers. Participants were included if they were adult female patients (≥18 years old) receiving immediate or delayed DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Participants were excluded if they were pregnant, had an allergy to adhesive dressings, or had a body mass index ≥40 kg/m<sup>2</sup>. Primary feasibility outcomes were attaining a 90% eligibility rate, 85% recruitment rate, and 85% retention rate. Secondary outcomes were abdominal site complications and patient-reported health-related quality of life measurements. Block randomization was performed in a 1:1 ratio intraoperatively following abdominal incision closure. Outcome assessment was performed by a blinded assessor. <b>Results:</b> There were 12 patients randomized to each group. The eligibility rate was 90.6%, recruitment rate was 86.2%, pre-randomization retention rate was 96.0%, and post-randomization retention rate was 95.8%. Wound dehiscence rates were 16.7% in the intervention and 41.7% in the control group. <b>Conclusion:</b> The full RCT was deemed feasible based on a priori feasibility outcomes. The anticipated sample size will be 54 patients per group to achieve adequate statistical power. The full multicenter trial is currently in the recruitment process. <b>Trial Registration:</b> NCT04985552.</p>","PeriodicalId":20206,"journal":{"name":"Plastic surgery","volume":" ","pages":"22925503251350926"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12213530/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503251350926","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There is equipoise regarding the use of closed-incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) versus conventional dressings for abdominal incisions in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. The primary objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ciNPT versus conventional dressings for abdominal incisions in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Methods: A parallel, between-group randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted at two academic breast reconstruction centers. Participants were included if they were adult female patients (≥18 years old) receiving immediate or delayed DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Participants were excluded if they were pregnant, had an allergy to adhesive dressings, or had a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2. Primary feasibility outcomes were attaining a 90% eligibility rate, 85% recruitment rate, and 85% retention rate. Secondary outcomes were abdominal site complications and patient-reported health-related quality of life measurements. Block randomization was performed in a 1:1 ratio intraoperatively following abdominal incision closure. Outcome assessment was performed by a blinded assessor. Results: There were 12 patients randomized to each group. The eligibility rate was 90.6%, recruitment rate was 86.2%, pre-randomization retention rate was 96.0%, and post-randomization retention rate was 95.8%. Wound dehiscence rates were 16.7% in the intervention and 41.7% in the control group. Conclusion: The full RCT was deemed feasible based on a priori feasibility outcomes. The anticipated sample size will be 54 patients per group to achieve adequate statistical power. The full multicenter trial is currently in the recruitment process. Trial Registration: NCT04985552.

封闭切口负压治疗与传统敷料在自体腹部组织乳房重建后的比较:MACVAC试点随机对照试验。
简介:在腹下深穿支(DIEP)皮瓣乳房重建术中,使用闭合切口负压治疗(ciNPT)与传统敷料治疗腹部切口是平衡的。主要目的是确定进行随机对照试验(RCT)比较ciNPT与传统敷料在DIEP皮瓣乳房重建中腹部切口的可行性。方法:在两家学术乳房再造中心进行平行、组间随机对照先导试验。如果是接受即时或延迟DIEP皮瓣乳房重建的成年女性患者(≥18岁),则纳入受试者。如果参与者怀孕,对粘接性敷料过敏,或体重指数≥40 kg/m2,则被排除在外。主要可行性结果是达到90%的合格率,85%的招募率和85%的保留率。次要结局是腹部并发症和患者报告的与健康相关的生活质量测量。术中腹部切口闭合后按1:1的比例进行分组随机化。结果评估由盲法评估者进行。结果:12例患者随机分为两组。入选率为90.6%,入选率为86.2%,随机化前留任率为96.0%,随机化后留任率为95.8%。创面裂开率干预组为16.7%,对照组为41.7%。结论:基于先验的可行性结果,完整的RCT被认为是可行的。预期的样本量为每组54例患者,以达到足够的统计效力。完整的多中心试验目前正在招募过程中。试验注册:NCT04985552。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Plastic surgery
Plastic surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Plastic Surgery (Chirurgie Plastique) is the official journal of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Group for the Advancement of Microsurgery, and the Canadian Society for Surgery of the Hand. It serves as a major venue for Canadian research, society guidelines, and continuing medical education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信