Jeffrey A Ascherman1,2, Kamakshi Zeidler1,2, Kerry A Morrison1,2, James Z Appel1,2, R L Berkowitz1,2, John Castle1,2, Amy Colwell1,2, Yoon Chun1,2, Debra Johnson1,2, Khashayar Mohebali1,2. 1. New York, N.Y.; Campbell, Sacramento, and Corte Madera, Calif.; Charlotte, N.C.; and Worcester and Boston, Mass. 2. From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center-New York Presbyterian Hospital; Aesthetic and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery; The Plastic Surgery Center; Mohebali Plastic Surgery; Novant Health Appel Plastic Surgery; the Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital; and Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital, Harvard Medical School.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: AeroForm is a new type of remote-controlled, needle-free, carbon dioxide-based expander involving a potentially faster method of tissue expansion. Results are presented here from the AirXpanders Patient Activated Controlled Tissue Expander pivotal trial comparing AeroForm to saline tissue expanders. METHODS:Women undergoing two-stage breast reconstruction were randomized at 17 U.S. sites in this U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved investigational device exemption trial. Expansion in the investigational arm was performed by the patient in 10-cc increments up to 30 cc/day of carbon dioxide and in the control arm by the physician with periodic bolus injections of saline. Safety endpoints, expansion and reconstruction times, pain, and satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS:One hundred fifty women were treated: 98 withcarbon dioxide expanders (n = 168) and 52 with saline expanders (n = 88). The treatment success rate (all breasts exchanged successfully excluding non-device-related failures) was 96.1 percent for carbon dioxide and 98.8 percent for saline. Median time to full expansion and completion of the second-stage operation was 21.0 and 108.5 days (carbon dioxide) versus 46.0 and 136.5 days (saline), respectively, with a similar rate of overall complications. Ease of use for the carbon dioxide expander was rated high by patients (98 percent) and physicians (90 percent). CONCLUSIONS: The AirXpanders Patient Activated Controlled Tissue Expander trial results demonstrate that a carbon dioxide-based expander is an effective method of tissue expansion with a similar overall adverse event rate compared to saline expanders, and provides a more convenient and expedient expansion. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: AeroForm is a new type of remote-controlled, needle-free, carbon dioxide-based expander involving a potentially faster method of tissue expansion. Results are presented here from the AirXpanders Patient Activated Controlled Tissue Expander pivotal trial comparing AeroForm to saline tissue expanders. METHODS:Women undergoing two-stage breast reconstruction were randomized at 17 U.S. sites in this U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved investigational device exemption trial. Expansion in the investigational arm was performed by the patient in 10-cc increments up to 30 cc/day of carbon dioxide and in the control arm by the physician with periodic bolus injections of saline. Safety endpoints, expansion and reconstruction times, pain, and satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty women were treated: 98 with carbon dioxide expanders (n = 168) and 52 with saline expanders (n = 88). The treatment success rate (all breasts exchanged successfully excluding non-device-related failures) was 96.1 percent for carbon dioxide and 98.8 percent for saline. Median time to full expansion and completion of the second-stage operation was 21.0 and 108.5 days (carbon dioxide) versus 46.0 and 136.5 days (saline), respectively, with a similar rate of overall complications. Ease of use for the carbon dioxide expander was rated high by patients (98 percent) and physicians (90 percent). CONCLUSIONS: The AirXpanders Patient Activated Controlled Tissue Expander trial results demonstrate that a carbon dioxide-based expander is an effective method of tissue expansion with a similar overall adverse event rate compared to saline expanders, and provides a more convenient and expedient expansion. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.
Authors: Juan M Colazo; Brian C Evans; Angel F Farinas; Salam Al-Kassis; Craig L Duvall; Wesley P Thayer Journal: Tissue Eng Part B Rev Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 6.389
Authors: Franca S Kraenzlin; Halley Darrach; Karan Chopra; Gedge D Rosson; Kristen P Broderick; Justin M Sacks Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2020-05-27
Authors: Seng Boh Lim; Li Cheng Kuo; Guang Li; Hsiang-Chi Kuo; Beryl McCormick; Oren Cahlon; Simon Powell; Linda X Hong Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Karan Chopra; Devinder Singh; Nick Hricz; Kylie Brassard; Virginia Orlov; Luther H Holton Iii Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-03-25
Authors: Karan Chopra; Benjamin Slavin; Nima Khavanin; Franca Kraenzlin; Halley Darrach; Luther Holton; Wilmina N Landford; Devinder P Singh Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-10-29
Authors: Nicholas Wilson; Rhiannon C Macefield; Christin Hoffmann; Matthew J Edmondson; Rachael L Miller; Emily N Kirkham; Natalie S Blencowe; Angus G K McNair; Barry G Main; Jane M Blazeby; Kerry N L Avery; Shelley Potter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 3.006