Abstract
Abstract
Background
Facial prostheses can have a profound impact on patients’ appearance, function and quality of life. There has been increasing interest in the digital manufacturing of facial prostheses which may offer many benefits to patients and healthcare services compared with conventional manufacturing processes. Most facial prosthesis research has adopted observational study designs with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) documented. There is a clear need for a well-designed RCT to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of digitally manufactured facial prostheses versus conventionally manufactured facial prostheses. This study protocol describes the planned conduct of a feasibility RCT which aims to address this knowledge gap and determine whether it is feasible to conduct a future definitive RCT.
Methods
The IMPRESSeD study is a multi-centre, 2-arm, crossover, feasibility RCT with early health technology assessment and qualitative research. Up to 30 participants with acquired orbital or nasal defects will be recruited from the Maxillofacial Prosthetic Departments of participating NHS hospitals. All trial participants will receive 2 new facial prostheses manufactured using digital and conventional manufacturing methods. The order of receiving the facial prostheses will be allocated centrally using minimisation. The 2 prostheses will be made in tandem and marked with a colour label to mask the manufacturing method to the participants. Participants will be reviewed 4 weeks following the delivery of the first prosthesis and 4 weeks following the delivery of the second prosthesis. Primary feasibility outcomes include eligibility, recruitment, conversion, and attrition rates. Data will also be collected on patient preference, quality of life and resource use from the healthcare perspective. A qualitative sub-study will evaluate patients’ perception, lived experience and preference of the different manufacturing methods.
Discussion
There is uncertainty regarding the best method of manufacturing facial prostheses in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability. There is a need for a well-designed RCT to compare digital and conventional manufacturing of facial prostheses to better inform clinical practice. The feasibility study will evaluate key parameters needed to design a definitive trial and will incorporate early health technology assessment and a qualitative sub-study to identify the potential benefits of further research.
Trial registration
ISRCTN ISRCTN10516986). Prospectively registered on 08 June 2021, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10516986.
Funder
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Leeds Hospitals Charity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference71 articles.
1. Cancer Research UK: Head and neck cancers statistics. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/head-and-neck-cancers/incidence#heading-Zero (2021). Accessed 30 Mar 2022.
2. Health and Social Care Information Centre. National head and neck cancer audit 2014, DAHNO tenth annual report. Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2015. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/national-head-and-neck-cancer-audit/national-head-and-neck-cancer-audit-2014-dahno-tenth-annual-report.
3. Goiato MC, dos Santos DM, Haddad MF, Pesqueira AA, de Carvalho Dekon SF, Zavanelli AC. Most frequent tumors in maxillofacial area rehabilitated through surgical reconstruction and prostheses. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21:396–9.
4. Murphy BA, Ridner S, Wells N, Dietrich M. Quality of life research in head and neck cancer: a review of the current state of the science. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2007;62:251–67.
5. Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, da Ramos Silva C, GennariFilho H, Micheline Dos Santos D. Patient satisfaction with maxillofacial prosthesis. Literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:175–80.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献