We updated the design of this site on September 25th. Learn more.
Show more
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

Secondary Breast Reconstruction With a Flap of Skin From the Back

This study is ongoing, but not recruiting participants.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
First Posted: June 20, 2014
Last Update Posted: September 22, 2017
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
University of Southern Denmark
Region of Southern Denmark
Sygehus Lillebaelt
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Vejle Hospital

The purpose of this study is to examine the different outcomes of breast reconstruction in women who are treated for breast cancer with mastectomy and subsequently have delayed breast reconstruction by one of two different surgical techniques both of which are based on the use of a tissue flap from the patient's back. These techniques are either a latissimus dorsi flap (LD-flap) or a thoracodorsal artery perforator flap (TAP-flap)

The main objective of the study is to establish whether one of these techniques may result in a superior outcome and thus should be recommended as first choice treatment rather than the other.

Condition Intervention
Breast Reconstruction Procedure: Latissimus Dorsi Flap Reconstruction Procedure: TAP Flap Reconstruction

Study Type: Interventional
Study Design: Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: Delayed Breast Reconstruction With Skin Flap From the Back

Resource links provided by NLM:

Further study details as provided by Vejle Hospital:

Primary Outcome Measures:
  • Shoulder Function [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

    The most important difference between the two procedures is the involvement of the muscle and change in shoulder function is the most relevant clinical measure to investigate.

    For evaluation of shoulder function we use the internationally validated Constant Shoulder Score (CSS). This system assess pain, function in everyday-life, range of motion and strength and incorporates these parameters into one total score. It is the recommended scoring-system by the European Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. Each variable in the system is evaluated separately.

    For all patients scoring will be performed preoperatively as well as 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Shoulder function will be evaluated bilaterally at all stages. To avoid multiplicity-issues the primary end-point has been defined as the difference in the total score between the baseline evaluation preoperatively and the evaluation one year postoperatively.

Secondary Outcome Measures:
  • Patient Reported Discomfort [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

    As the pain-related outcome measure in the CSS only concerns pain in the shoulder an assessment of the patients experience of pain and/or tightening in the neck, back, arm or breast will be performed at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. For this the following frasing will be used:

    "Have you experienced either pain, tightening or discomfort in your neck, back, arm or the reconstructed breast during the last month?"

    All patients indicating any symptomatology will be asked the following:

    "On a scale from 1-10, where 1 indicates the lowest level of pain or discomfort and 10 the highest, please indicate the worst level of pain or discomfort you have experienced in the past month"

    A median value of the level of discomfort at each time-point will be calculated for each patient-group and tested for statistically significant difference as the most important supportive secondary end-points.

  • Rehabilitation [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

    The patients need for physical rehabilitation and training will be addressed as the second most important supportive secondary end-point.

    A patient reported quantification of the time spent weekly on either physiotherapy or training targeted on the shoulder, arm and/or back will be made at baseline. All patients will follow the same rehabilitation program in the postoperative phase and for the first 3 months after surgery. Hereafter the rehabilitation will be individual and based on their specific needs.

    As for evaluation of the shoulder function, registration of average time spent weekly on physiotherapy/training will be made by the primary investigator in the outpatient clinic 6 and 12 months postoperatively. A median value of the time spent weekly on physiotherapy and shoulder-specific training at each time-point will be calculated for each patient-group and tested for statistically significant difference as supportive secondary end-points.

Other Outcome Measures:
  • Quality-of-life [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
    The patients' quality-of-life will be assessed before and after reconstruction using the international validated questionnaire developed The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) for assessment of life quality in cancer patients. Patients will be asked to complete the general questionnaire QLQ-30 in combination with the additional questionnaire QLQ-BR23 that has been specifically developed for cancer patients with breast-related diseases . The questionnaires will be completed in the outpatient clinic preoperatively and again 12 months after surgery.

  • Socio-economics [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
    In order to evaluate the socio-economic aspects and cost-benefit associated with the use of each surgical technique we record the following parameters for all patients: Duration of operation, duration of hospitalization, duration of entire course of the breast reconstruction, duration of sick leave and need for revisional/correctional procedures. Based on the data collected we will perform an evaluation of the total expenditure associated with the two different types of delayed reconstruction. This evaluation will comprise an estimate of the costs associated with the procedures including expenses for utensils, implants and ADM as well as an estimate of the expenses related to hospitalization, sick leave and rehabilitation.

  • Aesthetic Outcome [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

    We wish to conduct an evaluation of the aesthetic result of the different reconstructions including a professional assessment and an assessment from the patient. Hence all patients will be asked to evaluate the appearance of their bosom on a scale from 1 to 10 indicating their satisfaction with the reconstruction.

    Furthermore the patients will be subjected to a professional evaluation as all women will have their bosom photographed. Photographs will be evaluated by two unbiased medical consultants specializing in plastic surgery who are not associated with the department or the project. These specialists will be asked to perform the same evaluation as the patients.

    Both the patient's and the specialist's evaluation will be performed before surgery and once again at the final consultation in the outpatient clinic 12 months following the reconstruction.

  • Complications [ Time Frame: 3 months ]
    Complications following the surgery will be recorded continuously during hospitalization and in the outpatient's clinic. They will include: skin necrosis and/or delayed healing, infection, seromas, bleeding, flap-necrosis and explantation. Complications will be classified as either major or minor depending on the need for surgical revision.

Enrollment: 50
Study Start Date: September 2013
Estimated Study Completion Date: September 2017
Estimated Primary Completion Date: September 2017 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Arms Assigned Interventions
Active Comparator: Latissimus Dorsi Flap Reconstruction
Patients are allocated to delayed breast reconstruction with the Latissimus Dorsi flap and if needed an implant.
Procedure: Latissimus Dorsi Flap Reconstruction
Delayed, unilateral breast reconstruction with the LD-flap. The reconstruction will be performed in a standard fashion as specified in the protocol. Implants should be used when required to gain sufficient volume of the breast.
Active Comparator: TAP Flap Reconstruction
Patients are allocated to delayed breast reconstruction with the TAP-flap and if needed an implant in combination with an acellular dermal matrix.
Procedure: TAP Flap Reconstruction
Delayed, unilateral breast reconstruction with the TAP-flap. The reconstruction will be performed as specified in the protocol and when implants are required to gain sufficient volume they should be combined with an acellular dermal matrix.

  Show Detailed Description


Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.

Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years and older   (Adult, Senior)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   Female
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No

To avoid bias relating to the possible effect on the outcome measures caused by other surgical procedures such as mastectomy and axillary surgery performed simultaneously with the reconstruction only delayed procedures will be studied, as these are also most commonly the cases where autologous tissue transfer is required.

Patients that should thus be assessed for eligibility will include all women referred to the participating centres for unilateral, delayed breast reconstruction in the inclusion period. The criteria for participation are as follows:

Inclusion criteria:

1) Women over 18 years of age who are referred in the period between 1st of September 2013 and 30st of August 2015 for the purpose of unilateral, delayed breast reconstruction, and who are found best suited for reconstruction with a pedicled tissue flap from the back.

Exclusion criteria

  1. Patients found better suited for reconstruction by another method i.e. abdominal or free flap-reconstruction or expander/implant-based reconstruction.
  2. Patients with severe dementia that makes it impossible to collect data or obtain informed consent
  3. Non-Danish speaking patients from whom informed consent cannot be obtained by interpreter
  4. Patients where a suited perforator of the Thoracodorsal artery cannot be identified by colour Doppler ultrasonography.

All women referred for delayed breast reconstruction in the inclusion period will be assessed for eligibility and those meeting the criteria of the study population will be invited to participate in the study. The assessment will be conducted at the preliminary examination in the outpatient clinic by one of the centres consultants assigned to the trial.

Invited patients will receive both oral and written participant information after which a period of minimum 14 days is required before the patient can be enrolled in the trial in accordance with the The Danish Health Act.

Patients considering participation will be invited for a second consultation where written informed consent will be obtained from all who accept the invitation. Randomization will be performed immediately afterwards allocating the patient to reconstruction by either the LD-flap or the TAP-flap. Patients who do not which to be enrolled in the trial will be offered reconstruction with the LD-flap as this must be considered standard of care.

  Contacts and Locations
Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02169011

Herlev Hospital
Herlev, Denmark, 2730
Odense University Hospital
Odense, Denmark, 5000
Vejle Hospital
Vejle, Denmark, 7100
Telemark Hospital
Skien, Telemark, Norway, 3710
Sponsors and Collaborators
Vejle Hospital
University of Southern Denmark
Region of Southern Denmark
Sygehus Lillebaelt
Study Chair: Jørn B Thomsen, MD, PhD Center Hospital Lillebaelt, Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark
  More Information

Bonomi S, Settembrini F, Salval A, Gregorelli C, Musumarra G, Rapisarda V. Current indications for and comparative analysis of three different types of latissimus dorsi flaps. Aesthet Surg J. 2012 Mar;32(3):294-302. doi: 10.1177/1090820X12437783.
Perdikis G, Koonce S, Collis G, Eck D. Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: bad rap or good flap? Eplasty. 2011;11:e39. Epub 2011 Oct 17.
Garusi C, Lohsiriwat V, Brenelli F, Galimberti VE, De Lorenzi F, Rietjens M, Rossetto F, Petit JY. The value of latissimus dorsi flap with implant reconstruction for total mastectomy after conservative breast cancer surgery recurrence. Breast. 2011 Apr;20(2):141-4. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2010.10.007. Epub 2010 Nov 11.
Hammond DC. Latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Oct;124(4):1055-63. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b6bf05.
Dejode M, Bordes V, Jaffré I, Classe JM, Dravet F. [Oncologic, functional, and aesthetics results; evaluation of the quality of life after latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction. About a retrospective series of 450 patients]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2011 Jun;56(3):207-15. doi: 10.1016/j.anplas.2011.01.003. Epub 2011 Mar 29. French.
Forthomme B, Heymans O, Jacquemin D, Klinkenberg S, Hoffmann S, Grandjean FX, Crielaard JM, Croisier JL. Shoulder function after latissimus dorsi transfer in breast reconstruction. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2010 Nov;30(6):406-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-097X.2010.00956.x.
Faucher A, Barrault M, Duguey I. [Contribution to the study of painful and functional sequellae after breast reconstruction using latissimus dorsi flap. Investigation into 149 patients]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2010 Apr;55(2):104-10. doi: 10.1016/j.anplas.2009.04.008. Epub 2009 Oct 29. French.
Button J, Scott J, Taghizadeh R, Weiler-Mithoff E, Hart AM. Shoulder function following autologous latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction. A prospective three year observational study comparing quilting and non-quilting donor site techniques. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Sep;63(9):1505-12. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2009.08.017. Epub 2009 Oct 12.
Koh CE, Morrison WA. Functional impairment after latissimus dorsi flap. ANZ J Surg. 2009 Jan-Feb;79(1-2):42-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04797.x.
Glassey N, Perks GB, McCulley SJ. A prospective assessment of shoulder morbidity and recovery time scales following latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Nov;122(5):1334-40. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181881ffe.
Adams WP Jr, Lipschitz AH, Ansari M, Kenkel JM, Rohrich RJ. Functional donor site morbidity following latissimus dorsi muscle flap transfer. Ann Plast Surg. 2004 Jul;53(1):6-11.
Hamdi M, Van Landuyt K, Hijjawi JB, Roche N, Blondeel P, Monstrey S. Surgical technique in pedicled thoracodorsal artery perforator flaps: a clinical experience with 99 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 May;121(5):1632-41. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31816c3bfa.
Hamdi M, Salgarello M, Barone-Adesi L, Van Landuyt K. Use of the thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) flap with implant in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2008 Aug;61(2):143-6. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318158fd7b.
Hamdi M, Decorte T, Demuynck M, Defrene B, Fredrickx A, Van Maele G, De Pypere H, Van Landuyt K, Blondeel P, Vanderstraeten G, Monstrey S. Shoulder function after harvesting a thoracodorsal artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Oct;122(4):1111-7; discussion 1118-9. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31818459b4.
Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Dec;128(6):1162-9. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c29e. Review.
Hoppe IC, Yueh JH, Wei CH, Ahuja NK, Patel PP, Datiashvili RO. Complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction utilizing acellular dermal matrix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eplasty. 2011;11:e40. Epub 2011 Nov 3.
Himsl I, Drinovac V, Lenhard M, Stöckl D, Weissenbacher T, Dian D. The use of porcine acellular dermal matrix in silicone implant-based breast reconstruction. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Jul;286(1):187-92. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2266-x. Epub 2012 Mar 2.
Heneghan HM, Prichard RS, Lyons R, Regan PJ, Kelly JL, Malone C, McLaughlin R, Sweeney KJ, Kerin MJ. Quality of life after immediate breast reconstruction and skin-sparing mastectomy - a comparison with patients undergoing breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 Nov;37(11):937-43. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.08.126. Epub 2011 Sep 6.
Metcalfe KA, Semple J, Quan ML, Vadaparampil ST, Holloway C, Brown M, Bower B, Sun P, Narod SA. Changes in psychosocial functioning 1 year after mastectomy alone, delayed breast reconstruction, or immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Jan;19(1):233-41. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1828-7. Epub 2011 Jun 15.
Bellino S, Fenocchio M, Zizza M, Rocca G, Bogetti P, Bogetto F. Quality of life of patients who undergo breast reconstruction after mastectomy: effects of personality characteristics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jan;127(1):10-7. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f956c0.
Freitas-Silva R, Conde DM, de Freitas-Júnior R, Martinez EZ. Comparison of quality of life, satisfaction with surgery and shoulder-arm morbidity in breast cancer survivors submitted to breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy followed by immediate breast reconstruction. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2010 Jun;65(8):781-7.
Gahm J, Wickman M, Brandberg Y. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with inherited risk of breast cancer--prevalence of pain and discomfort, impact on sexuality, quality of life and feelings of regret two years after surgery. Breast. 2010 Dec;19(6):462-9. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2010.05.003. Epub 2010 Jun 3.
Wasteson E, Sandelin K, Brandberg Y, Wickman M, Arver B. High satisfaction rate ten years after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy - a longitudinal study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011 Jul;20(4):508-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2010.01204.x. Epub 2010 Jun 29.
Min SY, Kim HY, Jung SY, Kwon Y, Shin KH, Lee S, Kim SW, Kang HS, Yun YH, Lee ES. Oncological safety and quality of life associated with mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap. Breast J. 2010 Jul-Aug;16(4):356-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.00941.x. Epub 2010 Jun 10.
Atisha D, Alderman AK, Lowery JC, Kuhn LE, Davis J, Wilkins EG. Prospective analysis of long-term psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: two-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. Ann Surg. 2008 Jun;247(6):1019-28. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181728a5c.
Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Søjbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Mar-Apr;17(2):355-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022. Epub 2008 Jan 22.
Pacella SJ, Vogel JE, Locke MB, Codner MA. Aesthetic and technical refinements in latissimus dorsi implant breast reconstruction: a 15-year experience. Aesthet Surg J. 2011 Feb;31(2):190-9. doi: 10.1177/1090820X10395506.
Wirth R, Banic A, Erni D. Aesthetic outcome and oncological safety of nipple-areola complex replantation after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Sep;63(9):1490-4. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2009.08.014. Epub 2009 Oct 4.
Gahm J, Jurell G, Edsander-Nord A, Wickman M. Patient satisfaction with aesthetic outcome after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Feb;63(2):332-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2008.11.014. Epub 2008 Dec 13.

Responsible Party: Vejle Hospital
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02169011     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: S-20120207
First Submitted: June 18, 2014
First Posted: June 20, 2014
Last Update Posted: September 22, 2017
Last Verified: August 2016

Keywords provided by Vejle Hospital:
Breast reconstruction
Breast cancer

To Top