Prospective trial of efficiency and safety of fibrin sealant criofit after autologous breast reconstruction in stages I–III breast cancer

Introduction. Breast cancer is the most common cancer. Success in early diagnostic and system treatment is achieved. All the same mastectomy with reconstruction is the best option for some patients. Seroma is common complication after reconstructive plastic surgery.
Aim. To analyze efficiency of using fibrin sealant criofit at donor zone after autologous breast reconstruction in decreasing seroma incidences.
Materials and methods. This is randomised controlled clinical trial of fibrin sealant criofit effect on assessing of seroma incidences, timing of drain removal at donor zone after autologous breast reconstruction in comparison with control group. Surgical technic, drains removal criteria and patients characteristics were identical in both groups.
Results. Average drain fluid volume on the first day (150.9 ± 40.7 ml vs 190.6 ± 60.7 ml; p <0.001) and second day (152.6 ± 53.3 ml vs 184.9 ± 90.3 ml; p = 0.04) after surgery was significantly lower in experimental group. Average number of days of drainage in criofit group was significantly lower (6.3 ± 1.1 days vs 7.4 ± 2.1 days; p = 0.01). Seroma incidences in experimental group was lower in comparison with control group (10 % vs 23 %). It was statistically significant.
Conclusion. We aimed to asses the efficiency of fibrin sealant criofit at donor zone after autologous breast reconstruction. Criofit decrese the volume of serous draining in first days after surgery, number of days of drainage and seroma incidences significantly. But more powerful clinical trials are needed. Study limitations are small sample, changes in surgery team, small observation period.

1. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(3):209–49. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660

2. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2020 году. Под ред. А.Д. Каприна, В.В. Старинского, А.О. Шахзадовой. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена – филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2021. С. 239. The state of oncological care to the population of Russia in 2020. Ed. by A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinsky, A.O. Shakhzadova. Moscow: P.A. Herzen Moscow State Medical Research Institute – branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “NMIC of Radiology” of the Ministry of Health of Russia, 2021. P. 239. (In Russ.).

3. Fisher B., Anderson S., Bryant J. et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347(16):1233–41. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152

4. Veronesi U., Cascinelli N., Mariani L. et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347(16):1227–32. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989

5. Macmillan R.D., McCulley S.J. Oncoplastic breast surgery: what, when and for whom? Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2016;8:112–7. DOI: 10.1007/s12609-016-0212-9

6. Howes B.H., Watson D.I., Xu C. et al. Quality of life following total mastectomy with and without reconstruction versus breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: A case-controlled cohort study. J Plast= Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016;69(9):1184–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.06.004

7. Nahabedian M.Y. Defining the “gold standard” in breast reconstruction with abdominal tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114(3):804–6. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000131241.65531.73

8. Healy C., Allen R.J. The evolution of perforator flap breast reconstruction: twenty years after the first DIEP flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014;130(2):121–6. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1357272

9. Leyngold M.M. Is unipedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap obsolete owing to superiority of DIEP flap? Ann Plast Surg 2018;60:418–20. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001319

10. Zoghbi Y., Gerth D.J., Tashiro J. et al. Deep inferior epigastric perforator versus free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. Ann Plast Surg 2017;78(5):516–20. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000936

11. Garvey P.B., Buchel E.W., Pockaj B.A. et al. DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117(6):1711–9. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000210679.77449.7d

12. Grünherz L., Keijzer W., Uyulmaz S. et al. Donor site aesthetics and morbidity after DIEP flap breast reconstruction-A retrospective multicenter study. Breast J 2020;26(10):1980–6. DOI: 10.1111/tbj.14003

13. Bercial M.E., Sabino Neto M., Ferreira L.M. et al. Suction drains, quilting sutures, and fibrin sealant in the prevention of seroma formation in abdominoplasty: which is the best strategy? Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012;36(2):370–3. DOI: 10.1007/s00266-011-9807-8

14. Rossetto L.A., Garcia E.B., Ferreira L.M. et al. Seroma and quilting suture at the donor site of the TRAM flap in breast reconstruction: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial. Ann Plast Surg 2014;72(4):391–7. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182610b11

15. McCarthy C., Lennox P., Clugston P. et al. Use of abdominal quilting sutures for seroma prevention in TRAM flap reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2005;54(4):361–4. DOI: 10.1097/01.sap.0000151465.10356.dd

16. Spotnitz W.D. Fibrin sealant: the only approved hemostat, sealant, and adhesive – a laboratory and clinical perspective. ISRN Surg 2014;2014:203943. DOI: 10.1155/2014/203943

17. Carless P.A., Henry D.A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of fibrin sealant to prevent seroma formation after breast cancer surgery. Br J Surg 2006;93(7):810–9. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.5432

18. Sajid M.S., Hutson K., Kalra L., Bonomi R. The role of fibrin glue instillation under skin flaps in the prevention of seroma formation and related morbidities following breast and axillary surgery for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol 2012;106(6):783–95. DOI: 10.1002/jso.23140