Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Not Yet Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07602868

A Comparative Study of Delayed Endoscopic DTI and Autologous Flap Reconstruction Post-Mastectomy

In China, low breast-conserving surgery rates and historically minimal immediate reconstruction following mastectomy have resulted in a significant population of women living without a breast, often leading to long-term psychosocial distress. Current delayed reconstruction options are limited: traditional two-stage implant reconstruction necessitates two surgeries with associated costs and risks like infection and implant exposure, while autologous tissue transfer (e.g., TRAM/DIEP flaps), though offering superior natural aesthetics and patient satisfaction, involves extensive donor-site morbidity, prolonged recovery, and significant scarring, restricting its suitability. To address the drawbacks of both established methods-significant trauma, cost, and complexity-this study evaluates a novel technique for breast cancer patients post-mastectomy: endoscopic delayed direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. This study proposes to conduct a prospective cohort study to analyze complication rates, breast aesthetic scores, quality of life metrics, and other dimensions between delayed direct-to-implant breast reconstruction and abdominal flap breast reconstruction(DIEP and TRAM). The aim is to comprehensively evaluate the safety and clinical feasibility of endoscopic delayed direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Not Yet Recruiting

Trial opening soon.

Get Notified

Key information

Age range

18 year–70 year

Sex eligibility

Female

Study type

Observational

About this study

This study is a multicenter, Prospective, randomized controlled trial. According to previous study results, the mean difference in Breast-Q breast satisfaction scores at one year postoperatively versus preoperatively was approximately 10.4 points in the autologous tissue breast reconstruction group. It is estimated that the two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction group will achieve a 10.4-point improvement in breast satisfaction scores one year after surgery. The difference in Breast-Q breast satisfaction scores between postoperative and preoperative assessments is non-inferior to that of autologous reconstruction. Based on historical data, the sample size was calculated for both groups, with the study hypothesis that the difference in Breast-Q breast satisfaction scores between postoperative and preoperative assessments in the two-stage prosthetic reconstruction group is non-inferior to that of the two-stage abdominal flap breast reconstruction group (non-inferiority margin = 2). Stratification was performed based on whether radiotherapy was administered, dividing into a postoperative radiotherapy group and a non-radiotherapy group, with a sample size ratio of radiotherapy group to non-radiotherapy group = 1:2. Within each stratified group, the ratio of two-stage prosthetic reconstruction to abdominal flap reconstruction was set at 3:1. Using a one-sided test with a significance level of α = 0.05 and 80% statistical power, and assuming a 10% dropout rate, the total sample size required is 588. This includes 196 cases in the radiotherapy group (147 cases in the two-stage prosthetic reconstruction group and 49 cases in the abdominal flap reconstruction group) and 392 cases in the non-radiotherapy group (294 cases in the two-stage prosthetic reconstruction group and 98 cases in the abdominal flap reconstruction group).

  • Postoperative Surgical Complications: Assessed using Any Complication, Major Complication, and Minor Complication.
  • Any Complication: Any complication related to the surgical procedure occurring postoperatively. Each occurrence in a subject counts as one event. Postoperative complications can be classified into Grades I-V according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Complications graded Clavien-Dindo III or higher are considered Major Complications.
  • Major Complication: Defined as a complication related to the reconstructive procedure that persists despite observation and conservative management, requiring surgical intervention. Examples include wound dehiscence, hemorrhage requiring surgical intervention, surgical site infection, flap ischemia/necrosis, implant rupture, prosthesis loss, etc.
  • Minor Complication: Defined as a complication that resolves with observation or conservative management alone, without requiring surgical intervention. Examples include hemorrhage controllable by compression, surgical site infection controllable by oral antibiotics, seroma after drain removal, arm lymphedema, localized skin flap or NAC (nipple-areolar complex) ischemia/necrosis resolving spontaneously, implant malposition correctable by manual manipulation, animation deformity due to pectoralis major muscle division, pectoralis major muscle spasm, etc.
  • Postoperative Aesthetic Outcomes and Quality of Life (QoL) Assessment: Evaluated using the following validated instruments: the BREAST-Q questionnaire (Reconstruction module), Ueda Scale, Harris Scale, QLQ-BR45 questionnaire, and SCAR-Q questionnaire.
  • Aesthetic Complication Assessment: Evaluated through assessment of capsular contracture, implant visibility/palpability (contour visibility), rippling, implant malposition/displacement, and the need for secondary surgery due to aesthetic concerns.
  • Capsular Contracture (Baker Classification): A complication where the fibrous capsule surrounding the implant abnormally thickens, hardens, and contracts, leading to breast firmness, distortion, and/or pain.
  • Rippling: The appearance of visible wrinkles or folds on the skin surface overlying the implant.
  • Implant Visibility/Palpability (Contour Visibility): A phenomenon where the edge or shape of the implant becomes visibly apparent or readily palpable beneath the skin surface. Can be graded as mild, moderate, or severe.
  • Implant Malposition/Displacement: Shifting of the implant from its intended position post-implantation, resulting in abnormal breast contour or asymmetry.
  • Animation Deformity: Characterized by abnormal movement, contour distortion, or functional limitation of the breast mound during pectoralis muscle contraction (e.g., during arm movement).
  • Pectoralis Major Muscle Pain: Pain localized to the region of the pectoralis major muscle.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Female patients aged 18-70 years
  • One year after Modified Radical Mastectomy (MRM), Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy (NSM), or Skin-Sparing Mastectomy (SSM), or six months after the completion of radiotherapy, provided the local skin remains viable and sufficiently lax;
  • voluntary participation and ability to provide written informed consent.

Exclusion criteria

  • History of breast surgery in which the pectoralis major muscle was removed;
  • Patients with serious preoperative co-morbidities and poor general condition who cannot tolerate the surgery;
  • Diabetes mellitus with a long history of smoking or combined poor glycemic control;
  • current enrollment in other clinical trials that may interfere with study outcomes;
  • Review (clinical, imaging, pathological basis) reveals the presence of local/regional recurrence or uncontrollable distant metastasis.

Treatment and study plan

Primary outcomes

  1. breast satisfaction

    Time frame: 1 year

    Compare the BREAST-Q score(The psychosocial well-being, satisfaction with breasts, satisfaction with sexual life, and physical well-being of the chest from the BREAST-Q questionnaire's breast reconstruction module were used for evaluation. The BREAST-Q scoring system converts each patient's performance across these domains into independent scores ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health-related quality of life or satisfaction in the corresponding domain.)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Operative time

    Time frame: during operation

    duration from skin incision to completion of wound closure

  2. surgical-related costs

    Time frame: during operation

    includes all direct medical expenses incurred during the operation

  3. Complication outcomes

    Time frame: 3 months and 1 year postoperatively between the two groups.

    Surgical complication rates, including flap scald, NAC ischemia/necrosis, seroma, surgical area infection, bleeding, incision splitting, flap ischemia/necrosis

  4. Doctor-report outcomes

    Time frame: Intraoperative, 3 months, 1 year postoperatively

    -The Ueda scale is independently assessed by three professional healthcare workers across multiple domains, including breast size symmetry, breast shape symmetry, scar visibility, nipple-areola complex (size symmetry, position symmetry, color consistency), and inframammary fold position symmetry. Individual items are scored from 0 to 2 points, with a total score ranging from 0 to 10. Higher scores indicate better postoperative aesthetic outcomes: a total score of ≥9 is considered excellent, 7-8 good, 5-6 fair, and ≤4 poor.

  5. patient-report outcomes(Harris scale)

    Time frame: Intraoperative, 3 months, 1 year postoperatively

    It consists of four grades: Excellent (bilateral breasts essentially symmetric both with and without a bra), Good (symmetric when wearing a bra but obviously asymmetric without a bra), Fair (asymmetric but not obvious even when wearing a bra), and Poor (one breast destroyed or bilateral breasts obviously asymmetric). Higher scores indicate better aesthetic outcomes.

  6. patient-report outcomes (SCAR-Q scale)

    Time frame: Intraoperative, 3 months, 1 year postoperatively

    a patient-reported questionnaire consisting of 12 items, scoring only the scar on the operated side. Higher scores indicate better aesthetic outcomes.

  7. patient-report outcomes (The QLQ-BR45 scale )

    Time frame: Intraoperative, 3 months, 1 year postoperatively

    assesses quality of life in breast cancer patients, including both core cancer and breast cancer-specific dimensions. It covers 4 functional domains, 9 symptom domains, and 6 single items/symptoms. The scale uses a 4-point Likert response (1="Not at All" to 4="Very Much"). Domain scores are linearly converted to a 0-100 scale; higher scores indicate better quality of life for functional domaTime Frame: Intraoper

  8. Aesthetic complications

    Time frame: 1 years postoperatively

    Capsular contracture (Baker Grade); Implant visibility/palpability (contour visibility); Rippling; Implant malposition/displacement; Animation deformity; Pectoralis major muscle pain;

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Zhenggui Du

CONTACT

[email protected]

+86 13880768222

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

West China Hospital

Other

Registry information

Official study title

A National Multicenter, Prospective, Cohort Study on Delayed Endoscopic Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Via Transaxillary Approach Versus Autologous Flap Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy

Acronym: DEDIA

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2028
Study completion
2030
First posted
May 22, 2026
Registry last updated
Jun 10, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.