Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Comparison of PEAK PlasmaBlade™ to conventional diathermy in abdominal-based free-flap breast reconstruction surgery-A single-centre double-blinded randomised controlled trial.

Authors
  • Friebel, T R1
  • Narayan, N2
  • Ramakrishnan, V2
  • Morgan, M2
  • Cellek, S3
  • Griffiths, M2
  • 1 St. Andrews Centre for Plastics and Burns, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford CM17ET, United-Kingdom; Anglia Ruskin University, Bishop Hall Ln, Chelmsford CM11SQ, United Kingdom. Electronic address: [email protected] , (United Kingdom)
  • 2 St. Andrews Centre for Plastics and Burns, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford CM17ET, United-Kingdom.
  • 3 Anglia Ruskin University, Bishop Hall Ln, Chelmsford CM11SQ, United Kingdom. , (United Kingdom)
Type
Published Article
Journal
Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS
Publication Date
Aug 01, 2021
Volume
74
Issue
8
Pages
1731–1742
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.12.007
PMID: 33422499
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

Electrosurgery makes dissection with simultaneous haemostasis possible. The produced heat can cause injury to the surrounding tissue. 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. A single-centre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted which included 108 abdominal-based free-flap breast reconstruction patients who had their flap raise performed using either the PPB (n = 56) or the conventional diathermy (n = 52). Data were collected during their in-patient stay and out-patient appointments. The primary outcome value was the number of days the abdominal drains were required. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except a significantly lower flap weight in the PPB group. The median number of days the drains were required did not differ significantly (p = 0.48; 6.0 days for the diathermy and 5.0 days for the PPB). The total drain output (p = 0.68), the inflammatory cytokine in the drain fluid (p>0.054) and complications (p>0.24) did not differ significantly between the two groups. At the 2-week follow-up appointment, there was a trend towards less abdominal seromas on abdominal ultrasound (p = 0.09) in the PPB group which were significantly smaller (p = 0.04). The use of the PPB did not result in a significant reduction of drain requirement, total drain output or inflammatory cytokines but did reduce the size of seroma collections at the 2-week follow-up appointment. Therefore, the use of the PPB device could reduce early seroma formation after drain removal. Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times