Modified Uniportal Periareolar Incision Versus Conventional Uniportal Video-assisted Thoracic Surgery for Pulmonary Nodules: Protocol for a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

January 19, 2025 updated by: Fujian Medical University Union Hospital
Minimally invasive surgical techniques, including the uniportal approach, have become widely adopted in thoracic surgery. Both surgeons and patients aim to achieve incisions that are as minimally invasive and cosmetically favorable as possible. However, achieving the ideal uniportal incision remains challenging, as some patients inevitably experience complications such as scar hyperplasia or incision depression. Increasing expectations for superior surgical outcomes and improved postoperative quality of life place additional demands on thoracic surgeons. The periareolar approach, although rarely reported, typically involves entering the chest cavity directly through the mammary gland. Its application has been limited in the literature. In this study, we modified the periareolar incision by establishing a subcutaneous tunnel to minimize damage to the mammary gland. We aim to assess the feasibility and safety of this modified periareolar incision as a novel option for uniportal thoracoscopic surgery.Participants were divided into two groups: the modified periareolar incision group and the conventional uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) group. In the modified periareolar incision group, a curved incision was made along the lateral areola of the affected side. A subcutaneous tunnel was created between the mammary gland and the skin, extending to the fourth or fifth intercostal space along the anterior midaxillary line, where an intercostal incision was performed to access the thoracic cavity. In the conventional uniportal VATS group, patients were directly accessed through an intercostal incision in the midaxillary line. The primary endpoints of the study were the incidence of postoperative complications and the rate of conversion to thoracotomy during the operation. Postoperative complications were monitored and recorded for up to 3 months after surgery. The secondary endpoints of the study were differences in postoperative pain scores and cosmetic satisfaction between the two groups. Additional analyses included baseline patient characteristics and operative data. Postoperative pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, and 7. Incision recovery was evaluated at 1 and 3 months post-surgery using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Cosmetic satisfaction with the incision was assessed 1 month postoperatively using a 5-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very satisfied). Patients were also presented with photos of two incision types and asked to choose their preferred style. Modified periareolar incision is a small improvement of previously reported incision, but it significantly increases the number of procedures available and the number of patients who can be included. The modified periareolar incision could be used as a new option for uniportal VATS segmentectomy, and it was more cosmetic and less invasive,

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

174

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

  • Name: Chun Chen, MD

Study Locations

    • Fujian
      • Fuzhou, Fujian, China, 350001
        • Recruiting
        • Fujian Medical University Union Hospital
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Study Population

After patients provided informed consent, they underwent nonstratified randomization with the use of computer-generated assignments, and enrolled patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the perareolar incision group or the axillary incision group. The randomization protocol was managed by an external study administrator to prevent selection bias.

Description

Inclusion criteria:

  1. Male or female patients aged 18-75 years
  2. Good degree of movement of the areola (being able to move to the anterior axillary line)
  3. Meeting the criteria for thoracoscopic surgery, including lobectomy (expected absence of adhesions, well-developed interlobar fissure) and sublobectomy (including segmentectomy and wedge resection)
  4. No evidence of advanced lung cancer on preoperative evaluation
  5. No history of chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy
  6. ECOG performance status 0-1;
  7. Patients and their families agreed to participate in this study and signed a written informed consent form.

Exclusion criteria:

  1. Patients had previously undergone pneumonectomy or preoperative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy
  2. Previous breast surgery
  3. Risk of conversion to thoracotomy or changing the incision during the operation
  4. Poor preoperative lung function
  5. Presence of other cancers or other advanced diseases
  6. Preoperative pulmonary infection or uncontrolled acute pulmonary disease or acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
  7. Severe hypertension (resting systolic/diastolic blood pressure of >180/100 mmHg), intracranial mass, or intracranial hypertension
  8. Recent brain injury, cerebral infarction, or cerebral hemorrhage
  9. Hyperthyroidism
  10. Previous history of angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, or heart failure
  11. History of thoracoscopic resection of mediastinal and pleura tumors
  12. Central nervous system disease; mental or neurological diseases, cognitive or language dysfunction due to which the patient was unable to cooperate with the follow-up
  13. Pregnant or lactating women

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Experimental group (patients who received modified periareolar incision)

The experimental group (patients received periareolar incision):

An arc-shaped incision was made on the lateral side of the patient's affected areola. The subcutaneous tissue was then dissociated between the lateral mammary gland and the skin to the level of the fourth intercostal space in front of the midaxillary line. The fatty tissue behind the breast was separated horizontally to expose the serratus anterior muscle, and an intercostal incision was made. The skin was pulled back throughout the procedure to expose a better surgical field and avoid damage to the mammary gland.

The control group (patients underwent an axillary incision):

For patients in the control group, an incision was made into the fourth intercostal space in the midline of the axilla, where subcutaneous tissue was separated and entered the chest.

No Intervention: Control group (patients who received conventional uniportal thoracoscopic incision)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Postoperative complications
Time Frame: 1 month after the operation
Patients were followed up after surgery for complications
1 month after the operation
Rate of conversion to thoracotomy during the operation.
Time Frame: During surgery
During surgery

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Postoperative pain score
Time Frame: 1 week after the operation
Postoperative pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, and 7
1 week after the operation
Cosmetic satisfaction with the incision
Time Frame: 1 month after the operation
Cosmetic satisfaction with the incision was assessed 1 month postoperatively using a 5-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very satisfied). Patients were also presented with photos of two incision types and asked to choose their preferred style
1 month after the operation
Incision recovery
Time Frame: 3 months post-surgery
Incision recovery was evaluated at 1 and 3 months post-surgery using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)
3 months post-surgery

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

January 1, 2024

Primary Completion (Estimated)

October 1, 2025

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 1, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 2, 2024

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 2, 2024

First Posted (Actual)

January 11, 2024

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 25, 2025

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 19, 2025

Last Verified

January 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Surgical Incision

Clinical Trials on Type of surgical incision

Subscribe