Cargando…

Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS)

INTRODUCTION: Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in women with a high risk of developing breast cancer has shown to provide the greatest risk reduction. Many surgical guidelines recommend the removal of the pectoral fascia (PF) in mastectomies; however, there is no evidence to support this stat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clarijs, Marloes E, van Egdom, Laurentine S E, Verhoef, Cornelis, Vasilic, Dalibor, Koppert, Linetta B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9944307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36806067
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066728
_version_ 1784891886721302528
author Clarijs, Marloes E
van Egdom, Laurentine S E
Verhoef, Cornelis
Vasilic, Dalibor
Koppert, Linetta B
author_facet Clarijs, Marloes E
van Egdom, Laurentine S E
Verhoef, Cornelis
Vasilic, Dalibor
Koppert, Linetta B
author_sort Clarijs, Marloes E
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in women with a high risk of developing breast cancer has shown to provide the greatest risk reduction. Many surgical guidelines recommend the removal of the pectoral fascia (PF) in mastectomies; however, there is no evidence to support this statement. Reported wound-related complications following mastectomy include seroma, flap necrosis, infection and haematoma. Seroma causes discomfort and may delay the reconstructive procedures. Whether removal or preservation of the PF influences drain volume, seroma formation and other postoperative complications following BPM remains unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of removal versus preservation of the PF on drain policy and seroma after BPM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design. The inclusion criteria are women >18 years, presenting in the Academic Breast Cancer Centre Rotterdam, who are opting for BPM. Patients with a history or diagnosis of breast cancer are excluded. According to the sample size calculation based on the difference in total drain volume, a number of 21 eligible patients will be included. Randomisation will occur within the patient, which means PF preservation in one breast and PF removal in the contralateral breast. The primary study endpoint is total drainage volume. Secondary study outcomes include time to drain removal, number of needle aspirations, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Erasmus Medical Center Review Board (REC 2020–0431). Results will be presented during international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05391763; clinicaltrials.gov
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9944307
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99443072023-02-23 Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS) Clarijs, Marloes E van Egdom, Laurentine S E Verhoef, Cornelis Vasilic, Dalibor Koppert, Linetta B BMJ Open Surgery INTRODUCTION: Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in women with a high risk of developing breast cancer has shown to provide the greatest risk reduction. Many surgical guidelines recommend the removal of the pectoral fascia (PF) in mastectomies; however, there is no evidence to support this statement. Reported wound-related complications following mastectomy include seroma, flap necrosis, infection and haematoma. Seroma causes discomfort and may delay the reconstructive procedures. Whether removal or preservation of the PF influences drain volume, seroma formation and other postoperative complications following BPM remains unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of removal versus preservation of the PF on drain policy and seroma after BPM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design. The inclusion criteria are women >18 years, presenting in the Academic Breast Cancer Centre Rotterdam, who are opting for BPM. Patients with a history or diagnosis of breast cancer are excluded. According to the sample size calculation based on the difference in total drain volume, a number of 21 eligible patients will be included. Randomisation will occur within the patient, which means PF preservation in one breast and PF removal in the contralateral breast. The primary study endpoint is total drainage volume. Secondary study outcomes include time to drain removal, number of needle aspirations, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Erasmus Medical Center Review Board (REC 2020–0431). Results will be presented during international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05391763; clinicaltrials.gov BMJ Publishing Group 2023-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9944307/ /pubmed/36806067 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066728 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Surgery
Clarijs, Marloes E
van Egdom, Laurentine S E
Verhoef, Cornelis
Vasilic, Dalibor
Koppert, Linetta B
Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS)
title Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS)
title_full Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS)
title_fullStr Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS)
title_full_unstemmed Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS)
title_short Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS)
title_sort bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? protocol of a dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (profas)
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9944307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36806067
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066728
work_keys_str_mv AT clarijsmarloese bilateralprophylacticmastectomyshouldwepreservethepectoralfasciaprotocolofadutchdoubleblindedprospectiverandomisedcontrolledpilotstudywithawithinsubjectdesignprofas
AT vanegdomlaurentinese bilateralprophylacticmastectomyshouldwepreservethepectoralfasciaprotocolofadutchdoubleblindedprospectiverandomisedcontrolledpilotstudywithawithinsubjectdesignprofas
AT verhoefcornelis bilateralprophylacticmastectomyshouldwepreservethepectoralfasciaprotocolofadutchdoubleblindedprospectiverandomisedcontrolledpilotstudywithawithinsubjectdesignprofas
AT vasilicdalibor bilateralprophylacticmastectomyshouldwepreservethepectoralfasciaprotocolofadutchdoubleblindedprospectiverandomisedcontrolledpilotstudywithawithinsubjectdesignprofas
AT koppertlinettab bilateralprophylacticmastectomyshouldwepreservethepectoralfasciaprotocolofadutchdoubleblindedprospectiverandomisedcontrolledpilotstudywithawithinsubjectdesignprofas
AT bilateralprophylacticmastectomyshouldwepreservethepectoralfasciaprotocolofadutchdoubleblindedprospectiverandomisedcontrolledpilotstudywithawithinsubjectdesignprofas