Friebel TR, Narayan N, Ramakrishnan V, Morgan M, Cellek S, Griffiths M. Comparison of PEAK PlasmaBlade™ to
conventional diathermy in abdominal-based free-flap breast reconstruction surgery-A single-centre double-blinded randomised controlled trial.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020;
74:1731-1742. [PMID:
33422499 DOI:
10.1016/j.bjps.2020.12.007]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2020] [Revised: 11/08/2020] [Accepted: 12/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
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.
METHOD
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.
RESULTS
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).
CONCLUSION
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.
Collapse