Clinical trials

This study is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. The study aims to evaluate differences in operative efficiency (e.g., operative time), economic effect, surgical safety (e.g., surgical complication rates), postoperative aesthetics (e.g., BREAST-Q scores, Harris scores, SCAR-Q scores and Ueda scores), and oncological safety (e.g., margin status, no local recurrence survival) between patients undergoing M-E-BCS and patients undergoing C-O-BCS.

This study is a nationwide multicenter, single-arm, retrospective study. The study aims to conduct a detailed analysis of operation-related parameters, aesthetic outcomes (e.g., BREAST-Q scores and Harris scores), and safety (e.g., surgical complication rates) in delayed endoscopic direct-to-implant breast reconstruction via the axillary approach.

Breast cancer is a malignant tumor that seriously threatens the health of women, with an increasing incidence rate. The current main treatment methods include multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment such as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and endocrine therapy, among which surgery is the key. Postoperative care is also very important. Traditional breast surgery requires long-term placement of drainage tubes after the operation. However, long-term placement of drainage tubes increases the incidence of postoperative complications such as infection and delayed wound healing, prolongs hospital stays, increases economic burden, and also affects the aesthetic outcome. Our team has innovatively adopted the "reverse-sequence" endoscopic nipple-sparing-mastectomy with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. This method is highly efficient and safe, with no incisions on the surface of the breast, reducing the risk of incision dehiscence and the probability of flap ischemia and necrosis. Based on this, our team proposes to appropriately relax the drainage criteria and remove the drainage tube earlier under the premise of ensuring the sterility of the effusion, and preliminary findings show that patients have better postoperative aesthetic outcomes, with a lower incidence of flap infection, ischemia, and necrosis than expected, and the degree of breast deformation caused by radiotherapy is also reduced. However, there is still controversy over the pros and cons of drainage criteria. Some scholars believe that strict drainage criteria can reduce the risk of infection and implant displacement, and plastic surgeons are more concerned about the impact of long-term tube placement on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life. Currently there is a lack of large sample, multicenter, randomized controlled studies to provide high - level evidence. Therefore, our team plans to conduct a national multicenter, open, randomized controlled study to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two drainage methods under the premise of not reducing postoperative surgical and oncological safety, in order to explore the optimal timing for drain removal and improve patients' satisfaction with the reconstructed breast.

This study is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. It will prospectively compare outcomes between patients undergoing reverse-sequence endoscopic NSM (R-E-NSM) with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction (DIBR) with the "HUAXI Hole 1" versus without the "HUAXI Hole 1". The study aims to evaluate differences in operative efficiency, surgical safety, postoperative aesthetics, and oncological safety between the two groups.