Salvage of Infected Prosthetic Breast Reconstructions

Outcomes of Third-Attempt Breast Reconstruction following Infection-Associated Failure of Secondary Implant-Based Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most common method of breast reconstruction in the United States. Despite ongoing advancements, periprosthetic infection is a serious problem that often results in device explantation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of third-attempt reconstruction in patients in whom secondary implant-based reconstruction failed because of infection.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomy followed by IBR from 2000 to 2019. The outcomes of patients in whom secondary IBR failed because of infection and who ultimately underwent third-attempt breast reconstruction were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 6093 patients who underwent primary IBR, 13 patients had third-attempt breast reconstruction following infection-related explantation [median age, 52 years (interquartile range, 51 to 56 years); median body mass index, 23 kg/m 2 (interquartile range, 22 to 31 kg/m 2 ); median follow-up, 46 months (interquartile range, 16 to 62 months)]. Nine patients (70%) underwent IBR, two (15%) underwent IBR combined with pedicled latissimus dorsi flap, and two (15%) underwent abdominally based free tissue transfer. Third-attempt breast reconstruction was immediate in 46% of patients and delayed in 54%. The success rate was 78% in the IBR group, with a 23% complication rate. The success rate for autologous breast reconstruction was 100%, with one patient developing venous congestion necessitating return to the operating room.

CONCLUSIONS

Third-attempt breast reconstruction following infection-associated failed secondary IBR is a safe and feasible option. Although the risk of failure is higher than that for primary implant-based reconstruction, a third attempt after secondary IBR infection had a surprisingly high 78% success rate.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Rinse But Don't Repeat: Single Application V.A.C. VERAFLO Salvages Infected Breast Prostheses

Introduction

Existing salvage protocols for infected breast prostheses using negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell (NPWTi-d) require multiple returns to the operating room and prolonged length of stay. We present our expedited salvage protocol and discuss outcomes and associated costs savings.

Methods

Using a retrospective review, we identified 25 consecutive patients (27 breasts) with peri-prosthetic breast infection. Nine patients (10 breasts) underwent removal of infected breast prostheses followed by autologous or staged implant-based reconstruction. Sixteen patients (17 breasts) underwent our single application salvage protocol. A cost analysis was performed comparing the two groups, and an economic model was used to project the cost savings associated with using single application NPWTi-d protocol.

Results

Fifteen of the 16 patients (94%) who underwent single application NPWTi-d had successful implant salvage. Average duration of NPWTi-d was 2 days, 7 hours, and average length of stay was 4.43 days. Compared to control, patients who received the single application protocol required significantly fewer hospitalizations and office visits. A total savings of $58,275 could have been achieved by using the single application NPWTi-d protocol in the patients who did not undergo NPWTi-d.

Conclusions

Single application of NPWTi-d is a simple, safe, and cost-effective technique for salvage of breast prostheses, with 94% success rate, even in immunocompromised patients and severe infection. Compared to previous protocols, ours requires fewer trips to the operating room, shorter length of stay, and more permanent implants placed during salvage. Our protocol is also associated with fewer office visits and fewer returns to the operating room.

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy in the Prevention and Management of Complications From Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complications from prosthetic breast reconstruction are distressing for patients, and their management is challenging. For decades, negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been successfully used for the closure of complex wounds. This study analyzes the outcomes of NPWT use in the prevention and management of complications from prosthetic breast reconstruction.

METHOD

A systematic search of studies published until August 2020 was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ebscohost/CINAHL databases and using the following key words: "negative-pressure wound therapy," "breast reconstruction," and "prosthesis" (including breast implants and tissue expanders). Analyzed endpoints were outcomes of NPWT use in prosthetic breast reconstruction compared with conventional dressings. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently. Comparative studies were further meta-analyzed to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) describing the effectiveness of NPWT in prosthetic breast reconstruction.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

Ten studies were included with a total of 787 patients (1230 breasts) undergoing prosthetic breast reconstruction with breast implants or tissue expanders. Three case-control studies focused on preventing breast wound complications. The meta-analysis of the 3 studies included 502 breasts receiving NPWT and 698 breasts receiving conventional wound care. The meta-analysis favored NPWT for less mastectomy flap necrosis (5.6% vs 14.3%; OR, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 -0.77; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%) and less overall wound complications (10.6% vs 21.1%; OR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.70; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). In the management of nipple-areolar complex venous congestion, 1 case report demonstrated 85% rescue of nipple-areolar complex after using NPWT (-75 mm Hg) for a total of 12 days. In the management of periprosthetic infections, 2 case series used NPWT with instillation. It accelerated the treatment of infection and maintained the breast cavity for future reconstruction. Conventional NPWT also showed good salvage outcome in four studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that prophylactic use of NPWT in prosthetic breast reconstruction reduces the rate of overall wound complications and mastectomy flap necrosis. In the management of complications from prosthetic breast reconstructions, NPWT may be a promising option showing beneficial results. Additional high-quality trials are warranted to corroborate the findings of this systematic review.

Treatment of Implant Exposure due to Skin Necroses after Skin Sparing Mastectomy: Initial Experiences Using a Not Selective Random Epigastric Flap

Breast prostheses exposure is probably the most devastating complication after a skin sparing mastectomy (SSM) and implant-based, one-stage, breast reconstruction. This complication may occur in the immediate post-operative period or in the weeks and even months after the procedure. In most cases, the cause is poor skin coverage of the implant due to skin necrosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eight consecutive cases of implant exposure (or risk of exposure) due to skin necrosis in SSM patients over a period of 5 years, all patients were treated using a random epigastric rotation flap, executed by the same medical team.

RESULTS

A random epigastric flap (island or conventional rotation flap) was used to cover the skin defect. All the patients completed the procedure and all prostheses were saved; there were no cases of flap necrosis or infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Cases of skin necrosis after SSM and immediate implant reconstruction, in which the implant is at risk of exposure, can be successfully treated with a random epigastric rotation flap.