Intra-operative techniques to reduce the risk of capsular contracture in patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation – A review

Devil's Advocate: Evidence-Based Recommendation for "One Breast-One Insertion Funnel" Policy

BACKGROUND

Rates of capsular contracture have reduced significantly since the use of insertion funnels to place breast implants became routine. However, due to financial constraints, the same funnel is usually used for implantation of both sides.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine whether the risk of capsular contracture is higher for the second breast when the same insertion funnel is used for both breasts.

METHODS

The authors collected a sample of the insertion funnel tip immediately after removing the funnel from its sterile packaging and another tip sample after the funnel had been used to insert the first implant. These samples were sent for microbiological culture evaluations. Capsular contracture rates in the first implanted breast vs the second implanted breast were then retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

All samples taken from the funnel before the first implantation showed no bacterial growth. All 10 samples taken from the funnel after the first implantation showed organism growth (8 were positive for Staphylococcus epidermidis and 2 for Cutibacterium acnes). Retrospective analysis of the results revealed that the overall capsular contracture rate had reduced after the authors began to use insertion funnels. However, this complication was still more common on the second implanted breast.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons should consider the use of separate insertion funnels for each breast. This might help to slightly reduce the incidence of capsular contracture.See the abstract translated into Hindi, Portuguese, Korean, German, Italian, Arabic, and Chinese (Simplified and Traditional) online here: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjad288.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Contemporary Trends in Antiseptic Pocket Rinse in Primary Breast Implant Surgery

BACKGROUND

Broad evidence supports the use of antiseptic pocket rinse in breast implant surgery to minimize the risk of capsular contracture or other complications. However, there is limited consensus or standardization of antiseptic rinse in practice.

OBJECTIVES

In this preliminary study, we sought to determine contemporary trends in antiseptic rinse use in primary breast implant surgery based on Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) data, and whether these trends align with the suggestions of the 14-point plan.2 This further served as a feasibility study for subsequent comparison of antiseptic rinse effects on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Institutional ethics approval was obtained and national ABDR data for primary breast implant surgery from 2015-2020 was analysed for the use, and type, of antiseptic rinse. The surgeon-reported data was homogenized for terminology and categorized into major trends, and the literature reviewed.

RESULTS

We analysed data for 37,143 patients, totalling 73,935 primary implants. Antiseptic rinse included Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I) in 35,859 (48.5%), no antiseptic use in 24,216 (32.8%), other concentrations of PVP-I in 4,200 (5.7%), and 'Betadine® triple antibiotic'1 in 1,831 implants (2.5%). Multiple other antiseptic permutations were noted in 7,004 implants (9.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority (56.7%) of Australian practitioners utilise previously-described antiseptic pocket irrigation solutions which align with the 14-point plan. A third (32.8%), however, do not record any antiseptic pocket irrigation use. These findings will permit a subsequent (ongoing) study of outcomes comparing PVP-I to no antiseptic pocket rinse that will likely constitute the largest study of its kind.

Management of Biofilm with Breast Implant Surgery

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand how bacteria negatively impact aesthetic and reconstructive breast implants. 2. Understand how bacteria infect breast implants. 3. Understand the evidence associated with common implant infection-prevention strategies, and their limitations. 4. Understand why implementation of bacteria-mitigation strategies such as antibiotic administration or "no-touch" techniques may not indefinitely prevent breast implant infection.

SUMMARY

Bacterial infection of aesthetic and reconstructive breast implants is a common and expensive problem. Subacute infections or chronic capsular contractures leading to device explantation are the most commonly documented sequelae. Although bench and translational research underscores the complexities of implant-associated infection, high-quality studies with adequate power, control groups, and duration of follow-up are lacking. Common strategies to minimize infections use antibiotics-administered systemically, in the breast implant pocket, or by directly bathing the implant before insertion-to limit bacterial contamination. Limiting contact between the implant and skin or breast parenchyma represents an additional common strategy. The clinical prevention of breast implant infection is challenged by the clean-contaminated nature of breast parenchyma, and the variable behavior of not only specific bacterial species but also their strains. These factors impact bacterial virulence and antibiotic resistance.

A prospective randomized clinical trial to assess antibiotic pocket irrigation on tissue expander breast reconstruction

Bacterial infection is the most common complication following staged post-mastectomy breast reconstruction initiated with a tissue expander (TE). To limit bacterial infection, antibiotic irrigation of the surgical site is commonly performed despite little high-quality data to support this practice. We performed a prospective randomized control trial to compare the impact of saline irrigation alone to a triple antibiotic irrigation regimen (1 g cefazolin, 80 mg gentamicin, and 50,000 units of bacitracin in 500 mL of saline) for breast implant surgery. The microbiome in breasts with cancer (n = 16) was compared to those without (n = 16), as all patients (n = 16) had unilateral cancers but bilateral mastectomies (n = 32). Biologic and prosthetic specimens procured both at the time of mastectomy and during TE removal months later were analyzed for longitudinal comparison. Outcomes included clinical infection, bacterial abundance, and relative microbiome composition. No patient in either group suffered a reconstructive failure or developed an infection. Triple antibiotic irrigation administered at the time of immediate TE reconstruction did not reduce bacterial abundance or impact microbial diversity relative to saline irrigation at the time of planned exchange. Implanted prosthetic material adopted the microbial composition of the surrounding host tissue. In cancer-naïve breasts, relative to saline, antibiotic irrigation increased bacterial abundance on periprosthetic capsules (P = 0.03) and acellular dermal matrices (P = 0.04) and altered the microbiota on both. These data show that, relative to saline only, the use of triple antibiotic irrigation in TE breast reconstruction does impact the bacterial abundance and diversity of certain biomaterials from cancer-naïve breasts. IMPORTANCE The lifetime risk of breast cancer is ~13% in women and is treated with a mastectomy in ~50% of cases. The majority are reconstructed, usually starting with a tissue expander to help restore the volume for a subsequent permanent breast implant or the women's own tissues. The biopsychosocial benefits of breast reconstruction, though, can be tempered by a high complication rate of at least 7% but over 30% in some women. Bacterial infection is the most common complication, and can lead to treatment delays, patient physical and emotional distress and escalating health care cost. To limit this risk, plastic surgeons have tried a variety of strategies to limit bacterial infection including irrigating the pocket created after removing the breast implant with antibiotic solutions, but good-quality data are scarce. Herein, we study the value of antibiotics in pocket irrigation using a robust randomized clinical trial design and molecular microbiology approaches.

Enhancing Patient Outcomes in Aesthetic Breast Implant Procedures Using Proven Antimicrobial Breast Pocket Irrigations: A 20-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Capsular contracture (CC) remains the most common complication of implant-based aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. With subclinical infection proven to be the primary etiology, antimicrobial breast pocket irrigation has been recommended as the key step to reduce CC but has not been universally adopted.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to review the rates of CC observed when applying proven antimicrobial breast pocket irrigations.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation were recorded prospectively from 1997 to 2017. The irrigation was performed with either a Betadine-containing (50% Betadine or "Betadine triple") or a non-Betadine triple antibiotic regimen. The database was assessed to determine the type of implant used, the incidence of CC, and possible contributing factors. The degree of CC was recorded according to the Baker classification.

RESULTS

A 20-year prospective data collection yielded 2088 patients with 4176 implants; of these patients, 826 had textured implants and 1262 had smooth implants. The incidence of Grade III/IV CC was found to be 0.57% in all patients undergoing primary breast augmentation (1.21% in textured implants and 0.16% in smooth implants).

CONCLUSIONS

This study constitutes the largest and longest review of CC in a controlled, single-surgeon setting. The incidence of CC is low and reinforces the efficacy/utility of antimicrobial breast pocket irrigation. Both the Betadine and non-Betadine antibiotic regimens were found to be effective, with the Betadine regimen being preferred. Universal adoption of Betadine-containing antimicrobial breast pocket irrigation is recommended to reduce CC and other device-associated infections.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Evidence-Based Wound Irrigation: Separating Fact from Fiction

SUMMARY

The relationship between wound irrigation and healing has been recognized for centuries. However, there is little evidence and no official recommendations from any health care organization regarding best wound irrigation practices. This is the first review of wound irrigation that systematically summarizes the literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and distills the evidence into a practical format. In this comprehensive review, the authors outline the irrigation fluids and delivery methods used in the identified studies, analyze reported treatment outcomes, summarize irrigation effectiveness, and propose evidence-based guidelines to improve wound healing outcomes and enhance the consistency of wound irrigation. Thirty-one high-quality studies with a combined total of 61,808 patients were included. Based on the current evidence provided by this review, the authors propose the following guidelines: (1) acute soft-tissue wounds should receive continuous gravity flow irrigation with polyhexanide; (2) complex wounds should receive continuous negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation with polyhexanide; (3) infected wounds should receive continuous negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation with silver nitrate, polyhexanide, acetic acid, or povidone-iodine; (4) breast implant wounds should receive gravity lavage with povidone-iodine or antibiotics; and (5) surgical-site infection rates can be reduced with intraoperative povidone-iodine irrigation.

A Systematic Review of Breast Irrigation in Implant-Based Breast Surgery

BACKGROUND

Aesthetic and reconstructive implant-based breast surgeries are some of the most frequently performed procedures by plastic surgeons. As such, prevention of implant infection is of high importance. However, there remains no criterion-standard protocol for irrigation of the breast pocket. This review focuses on current irrigation practices in implant-based breast surgery.

METHODS

Four databases were used to search for all studies, including randomized controlled trials, retrospective cohort, and prospective cohort, containing original data related to the outcomes investigated in this study. Search terms included "breast," "irrigation," and "infection" in different combinations to isolate studies that focused on irrigation methods in both reconstructive and augmentation surgeries. Our selection criteria specifically concentrated on those studies that explicitly related irrigation procedures to rates of clinical infection and/or capsular contracture. Each was compiled into a table in chronological order to make comparisons between the differing irrigation methods.

RESULTS

Our search returned 239 full-text articles eligible for our review. Two independent screeners identified 9 studies that met the inclusion criteria. This included 1 prospective study and 8 retrospective studies. Two studies reported the use of chlorhexidine gluconate irrigation resulting in protection from clinical infection. Two studies investigated the role of triple antibiotic solution (TAS) either alone or combined with something else on risk of infection, and 3 reported TAS use on rates of capsular contracture. Two additional studies investigated the role of single antibiotic irrigation, concluding that some antibiotic regimen for irrigation may be sufficient in the breast pocket. Interestingly, one study noted the potential use of povidone-iodine (Betadine) as a method of irrigation.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that chlorhexidine gluconate, Betadine, and TAS irrigation of the breast pocket can provide protection against infection and implant loss in both reconstruction and augmentation surgeries.

Hot Topics in Breast Surgery

Since the first implant-based breast surgeries were performed nearly 70 years ago, breast augmentation it has changed drastically. As understanding of breast augmentation has advanced, so too have the technologies and techniques used to improve results and minimize the risk of complications in breast implant surgery. This article reviews some of the novel techniques and technologies used today in breast augmentation surgery. How these tools and techniques will withstand the test of time remains to be seen, but they no doubt will add to the fascinating and ever-evolving history of breast augmentation.

Does Implant Surface Texture Affect the Risk of Capsular Contracture in Subglandular Breast Augmentation and Breast Augmentation-Mastopexy?

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported decreased rates of capsular contracture associated with the use of textured surface breast implants placed in the subglandular plane during breast augmentation. However, since the publication of these studies, our understanding of the pathophysiology of capsular contracture, as well as the surgical techniques utilized to minimize bacterial contamination of the implant, have advanced considerably.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the relation between implant surface texturization and capsular contracture rates for breast implants placed in the subglandular plane during primary breast augmentation.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed of all primary subglandular breast augmentation procedures involving the use of either smooth or textured round silicone gel implants, with or without simultaneous mastopexy. The primary outcome measures included clinically significant capsular contracture (Baker grade III/IV) and revision surgery for capsular contracture.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2017, 526 patients underwent primary subglandular breast augmentation with either smooth (n = 212) or textured (n = 314) round silicone gel implants; 248 patients underwent breast augmentation, whereas 278 underwent breast augmentation-mastopexy. Average follow-up was 756 days in the textured group and 461 days in the smooth group. Five cases of capsular contracture were observed in the textured group, and 7 cases of capsular contracture were observed in the smooth group (P = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Smooth surface implants placed in the subglandular plane were not at a significantly increased risk of capsular contracture compared with textured surface implants. We suggest that adherence to a surgical technique focused on minimizing bacterial contamination of the implant is of greater clinical significance than implant surface characteristics when discussing capsular contracture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Implant Insertion Time and Incision Length in Breast Augmentation Surgery with the Keller Funnel: Results from a Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

The Keller funnel is an easy-to-use mechanical device that aids breast implant insertion. This study analyzed implant insertion time and incision length using the Keller funnel versus conventional manual insertion.

METHODS

This was an analysis of two cohorts of adult patients undergoing primary breast augmentation with anatomical implants at a single center. In the 'insertion time cohort' (N = 20), implants were inserted with a Keller funnel on one side and manually on the other; follow-up lasted 4 years. In the 'incision length cohort,' both implants were inserted with a Keller funnel (N = 50) or manually (N = 50), with follow-up lasting 12 months.

RESULTS

In the insertion time cohort, mean total insertion time (from implant sterile-package opening to final positioning in the pocket) was 35 s (range 13-76 s) with the Keller funnel and 25 s (range 13-43 s) using manual insertion (p = 0.07); the mean time needed to push the implant through the incision was 6 s (range 3-10 s) with the Keller funnel and 16 s (range 13-40 s) with manual insertion (p = 0.04). In the incision length cohort, mean incision length was shorter with the Keller funnel versus manual insertion (35.5 ± 2.1 mm vs. 46.2 ± 3.2 mm; p < 0.001). There were no differences in complications based on insertion method.

CONCLUSION

The Keller funnel was associated with decreased incision length and reduced time to push the implant through the incision. This brings potential clinical advantages in minimizing scarring and reducing contamination of the device.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .