Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Active, not recruiting

Administrative data

NCT number NCT04715802
Other study ID # IIT20200748A
Secondary ID
Status Active, not recruiting
Phase
First received
Last updated
Start date October 18, 2006
Est. completion date December 31, 2022

Study information

Verified date December 2020
Source First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University
Contact n/a
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority
Study type Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

Since polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAAG) was used in cosmetic surgery in 1997, about 30 million women have received PAAG injection for breast augmentation. Although the use of PAAG has been prohibited in most countries due to its myriad complications, a large number of symptomatic patients and asymptomatic patients have continued to seek medical advice. The strategy of repairing secondary breast deformities after PAAG removal has increasingly become a concern for both doctors and patients, but there is no standardized algorithm yet. The purpose of the present study was to perform a retrospective study to compare the safety and effectiveness of different reconstruction timing and method after removing the gel.


Description:

The primary purposes of this study are to: 1. Compare the safety and effectiveness of IBR vs DBR after PAAG removal; 2. Compare the safety and effectiveness of breast implants with silicone gel prosthesis vs autologous fat transplantation after PAAG removal; 3. Evaluate the clinical characteristics associated with and rates of complications based on reconstruction timing and type. The secondary purposes of this study are toļ¼š 1. Explore and summarize the characteristics of long-term complications of PAAG injection for breast augmentation; 2. Compare the rate of postoperative complications and reoperations between the patients who had breast reconstruction with implants and patients who had primary breast augmentation with implants. 3. Further refine the algorithm for breast reconstruction in patients with PAAG injections.


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Active, not recruiting
Enrollment 240
Est. completion date December 31, 2022
Est. primary completion date December 31, 2022
Accepts healthy volunteers
Gender Female
Age group 18 Years to 60 Years
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria: 1. history of PAAG breast injection; 2. appeal to remove the gel; 3. availability of complete medical records; 4. accepting the potential complications of the operation and breast deformity after gel removal. 5. agreeing with medical history data collection, clinical follow-up investigation, and independent Complete the questionnaire. Exclusion Criteria: 1. Patients who had other breast diseases; 2. Patients who failed to follow the standard diagnosis, treatment and follow-up; 3. Lost to follow-up due to various reasons or incomplete medical records; 4. Patients with cognitive disorders such as mental illness, understanding, memory, or orientation, and other serious diseases.

Study Design


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


Intervention

Procedure:
Immediate breast reconstruction with implant
Because most fillers are under the mammary gland, it is better to place the prosthesis into the opening under the pectoralis major muscle, which avoids contact between the prosthesis and the residual hydrogel to reduce the chance of infection. If postoperative complications disappear and imaging shows no filler remnants after more than 3-month follow-up, secondary breast augmentation can be planned. For placement of the prosthesis, the plane under the pectoralis major is preferred, which avoids prosthesis contact with the residual hydrogel to thus reduce the chance of infection.
delayed breast reconstruction with implant
The first stage included maximal gel removal and purulent tissue debridement, if necessary. Thereafter, patients were invited for a clinical follow-up and discussion about DBR 3 months later. The latter was offered as a second stage in those opting for it.
delayed breast reconstruction with autologous fat transplantation
Because fat injection after PAAG removal has a high infection risk, it is recommended to be conducted after 3-6 months of follow-up. The advantage of autologous fat transplantation is its ability to repair a variety of breast shape deformities caused by PAAG removal. Fat injections may need to be repeated several times. The interval between injections should be at least 3 months. Usually, the amount of transplanted fat is 150-200 mL/side. A multilayer and multi-tunnel injection method is commonly used.

Locations

Country Name City State
China Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University Hangzhou Zhejiang

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

China, 

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Primary the occurrence of a postoperative complication Complications are defined as any adverse postoperative events directly related to gel removal or breast reconstruction surgery that require further treatment. According to the patient's main complaint, physical examination, chest radiography, breast ultrasound, breast mammography or MRI, pathological biopsy and other methods to evaluate the complications. According to the degree of complications, they were further divided into: (1) Mild complications: conservative treatment without surgical treatment. (2) Severe complications: the incidence of complications requiring reoperations or implant removal/replacement operations. until 10 years post operation
Primary The probability of reoperations Reoperation was defined as a surgical event performed after PAAG removal alone or stage I and II reconstruction. An anticipated operation of delayed breast implantation in patients with two-stage surgery was not classified as reoperation. until 10 years post operation
Secondary Patient-reported quality of life, QOL Patient-reported quality of life using Breast-Q score to evaluate changes in breast appearance, mental health, physical health and sexual health satisfaction before and after surgery. until 1 year post operation
Secondary Aesthetic evaluation It was evaluated by the Aesthetic Items Scale, which was a standardized tool for evaluating the aesthetic effect of breast reconstruction surgery, which was first proposed by Visser and Brinkman. The specific method was as follows: 3 experienced plastic surgeons evaluate 5 standardized photos (front, oblique, and side) of the patient before and after surgery. All photos were organized into slides and displayed randomly, with other information hidden (Such as preoperative or postoperative state, reconstruction method used, complications or whether to perform a second operation, etc.). In order to minimize the deviation, blank slides were displayed between the photos, and the random order of the photos of each observer was different. Each doctor used a five-point Likert scale to score breast volume, shape, symmetry, scars, and nipple areola. In addition, each doctor gave an overall satisfaction score between 0-10 points based on pre- and post-operative photos. until 1 year post operation
Secondary change in patient satisfaction Patient satisfaction consisted of four structured questions that assessed satisfaction with the size, shape, symmetry, and sensitivity of the breast. Patients were asked to rate their final result as "good", "satisfactory", "poor" or "bad". until 1 year post operation
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Recruiting NCT03757793 - Near-infrared Spectroscopy for Monitoring Tissue Oxygenation in Breast Reconstruction
Completed NCT05491473 - Negative Pressure in PAP Donor Sites
Not yet recruiting NCT06013514 - Post-market Prospective Clinical Study of Nagor Perle Mammary Implants
Completed NCT02169011 - Secondary Breast Reconstruction With a Flap of Skin From the Back N/A
Completed NCT01216319 - Evaluation of the Cook Biodesign Plastic Surgery Matrix N/A
Completed NCT01176786 - Reusable Versus Disposable Draping System in Breast Reconstruction Surgery N/A
Not yet recruiting NCT00973544 - Do Closed Suction Drains Affect the Complications Rate of Breast Reconstruction With Silicone Prosthesis? N/A
Active, not recruiting NCT00748722 - Pre-Operative Imaging of Abdominal Wall Perforators Using CT Angiography N/A
Completed NCT00753922 - Core Gel Study of the Safety and Effectiveness of Mentor Round Low Bleed Silicone Gel-filled Mammary Prostheses Phase 3
Completed NCT05897463 - Nipple Neurotization
Recruiting NCT05377723 - Abdominal Scar Improvement in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction N/A
Completed NCT04350411 - Comparison of PEAK PlasmaBladeā„¢ to Conventional Diathermy in Abdominal Based Free Flap Breast Reconstruction N/A
Completed NCT06321549 - New Era of DIEP With Minimally Invasive Mastectomy
Withdrawn NCT03135392 - Sensation After Nipple Sparing Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction With or Without Neurotized Free Tissue Transfer N/A
Completed NCT01256502 - The SERI® Surgical Scaffold Use in Reconstruction Post Market Study for Tissue Support and Repair in Breast Reconstruction Surgery N/A
Active, not recruiting NCT04491591 - Implementing BREASTChoice Into Practice N/A
Recruiting NCT04661501 - BREAST ADM Trial for Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction N/A
Suspended NCT03625765 - Integrated Imaging System for In Vivo Visualization of Free Flap Perfusion Using Indocyanine Dye N/A
Withdrawn NCT00778947 - Single Centre Study to Compare Harmonic Scalpel to Conventional Diathermy in Free Tissue Transfer Breast Reconstruction N/A
Completed NCT00905645 - Sientra Sponsored Silimed Gel-Filled Breast Implant Core Clinical Study N/A