Commentary on: Hypochlorous Acid Versus Povidone-Iodine Containing Irrigants: Which Antiseptic Is More Effective for Breast Implant Pocket Irrigation?

Evaluating the Efficacy of Povidone-Iodine Solution Infection Prophylaxis in Immediate Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Controlled Retrospective Analysis

Background: There is currently no consensus among plastic surgeons regarding the optimal infection prophylaxis for immediate tissue expander placement following mastectomy. The goal of this study was to determine whether irrigation with 1 L of standard triple antibiotic solution (TAS) can achieve similar infection rates compared to a regimen of 180 mL of TAS with povidone-iodine solution (Betadine) painted on the field immediately prior to the placement of the expander. Methods: The 2 regimens were compared via retrospective propensity matching of all patients of the 2 senior authors who underwent bilateral tissue expander placement immediately following mastectomy with one of 3 mastectomy surgeons from January 2013 to December 2019 (n = 281). Groups were controlled for mastectomy surgeon, mastectomy type, mastectomy weight, age, race, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, smoking status, prepectoral/subpectoral placement, use of acellular dermal matrix, operating room time, and duration of postoperative antibiotics. Results: Compared to the Betadine cohort (n = 65), the non-Betadine cohort (n = 65) experienced a similar rate of infections (13.8% vs 12.3%, P = 1.00), including major injections requiring intravenous antibiotic treatment (10.8% vs 9.2%, P = 1.00), after propensity matching. Infections in the non-Betadine cohort did not grow different bacteria on culture, require different antibiotic coverage, or result in prolonged duration of average antibiotic therapy (12.0 days vs 19.3 days, P = .19). Rates of subsequent expander washout and exchange (P = 1.00) and overall complications that required return to the operating room (P = .826) were similar between groups. Conclusion: The addition of Betadine solution to TAS added no benefit to infection prophylaxis or reduction of surgical complications in immediate tissue expander placement procedures.

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

Pocket Irrigation and Technique During Reconstructive Surgery: An American Society of Plastic Surgery Survey of Current Practice

BACKGROUND

Expander-to-implant is the most common breast reconstruction procedure in the United States. Irrigation with triple antibiotic solution (TAS), as described by Adams et al in 2006, has become standard of care to lower bacterial bioburden. However, several alternative solutions have been implemented with the literature lacking a consensus regarding use (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:30-36).

OBJECTIVE

We distributed a peer-reviewed survey among a cohort of American Society of Plastic Surgery (ASPS) members to assess pocket irrigation technique during implant-based reconstructive surgery. We then conducted a pilot in vitro study to determine antibacterial efficacy of the most preferred irrigation at preferred dwell times against select bacterial species linked to breast pocket contamination during reconstructive implant-based surgery.

METHODS

The survey was distributed a total of 3 times to a random cohort of 2488 ASPS members in January 2018. During in vitro studies, pure cultures of common breast flora were exposed to TAS versus saline control at 1, 2, and 5 minutes in a simulated in vivo cavity. Viable plate counts were used to assess cell viability.

RESULTS

The response rate was above the ASPS survey average at 16% (n = 407). The population reflected a cross-section of practice types and experience levels. Triple antibiotic solution without Betadine was the favored irrigation at 41%, with 73% of its users preferring dwell times of 2 minutes or less. Over 30 distinct breast pocket irrigation solutions were identified. Bacteria added to the in vivo cavity survived a 2-minute dwell time with TAS as follows: 51% Staphylococcus epidermidis, 69% Escherichia coli, 88% Enterococcus faecalis, 88% Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and 98% Acinetobacter baumannii.

CONCLUSION

Our survey data demonstrate significant variability in practice and lack of consensus among ASPS members regarding antimicrobial irrigation during reconstructive breast surgery. Our in vitro data underscores the importance of relating clinical practices with laboratory studies of microorganisms potentially linked to breast pocket contamination and suggests that TAS requires either dwell times greater than 5 minutes and/or the inclusion of efficacious antimicrobial agents (eg, Betadine). This finding has the potential to impact antimicrobial pocket irrigation and technique during breast reconstruction.

The Efficacy of Breast Implant Irrigant Solutions: A Comparative Analysis Using an In Vitro Model

BACKGROUND

Infections are challenging complications of implant-based breast reconstruction and augmentation. They pose a clinical challenge, with significant economic implications. One proposed solution is implant irrigation at the time of placement. There is no consensus on the optimal irrigant solution.

METHODS

The authors tested the relative efficacy of 10% povidone-iodine, Clorpactin, Prontosan, triple-antibiotic solution, or normal saline (negative control) against two strains each of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Sterile, smooth silicone implant disks were immersed in irrigant solution, then incubated in suspensions of methicillin-resistant S. aureus or S. epidermidis overnight. The disks were rinsed and sonicated to displace adherent bacteria from the implant surface, and the displaced bacteria were quantified. Normalized values were calculated to characterize the relative efficacy of each irrigant.

RESULTS

Povidone-iodine resulted in reductions of the bacterial load by a factor of 10 to 10 for all strains. Prontosan-treated smooth breast implant disks had a 10-fold reduction in bacterial counts for all but one methicillin-resistant S. aureus strain. In comparison to Prontosan, triple-antibiotic solution demonstrated a trend of greater reduction in methicillin-resistant S. aureus bacterial load and weaker activity against S. epidermidis strains. Clorpactin reduced the recovered colony-forming units for only a single strain of S. epidermidis. Povidone-iodine demonstrated the greatest efficacy against all four strains. However, Clorpactin, triple-antibiotic solution, and Prontosan demonstrated similar efficacies.

CONCLUSIONS

Povidone-iodine was the most efficacious of the irrigants at reducing methicillin-resistant S. aureus and S. epidermidis contamination. Given the recent lifting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration moratorium, larger clinical studies of povidone-iodine as a breast implant irrigant solution are warranted.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, V.

Antimicrobial Irrigation and Technique during Breast Augmentation: Survey of Current Practice

Breast augmentation is among the most common procedures performed in the United States. Though bacterial contamination of breast prostheses is associated with adverse sequelae, there are no universally accepted guidelines and limited best practice recommendations for antimicrobial breast pocket irrigation. We designed a survey to identify pocket irrigation preferences and antimicrobial techniques during implant-based breast augmentation among American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) members.

METHODS

In January 2018, a random cohort of 2,488 ASPS members was surveyed. Questions queried breast pocket irrigation methods and surgical techniques including implant placement, incision location, and implant soaking agents. An extensive literature review of breast pocket irrigation practices was completed and used as a basis for the survey.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was above the ASPS average at 16% (n = 407). Respondents preferred an inframammary incision (90%) and submuscular implant placement (92%). Triple antibiotic solution (TAS) and TAS + Betadine ± Bacitracin were preferred by 61% and Betadine variants by 11%. Preferred dwell times stratified to 30 seconds (39%), 1 minute (18%), 2-5 minutes (21%), and >5 minutes (22%). Among those employing a TAS variant, 53% preferred a suboptimal dwell time of ≤1 minute. Prostheses were soaked in TAS (42%), TAS + Betadine ± Bacitracin (15%), a Betadine variant (12%), or other (31%).

CONCLUSIONS

Periprosthetic bacterial contamination leads to comorbidity following breast augmentation. Our results reveal significant variability regarding breast pocket irrigation techniques among ASPS members during cosmetic breast augmentation. These data suggest the need for best practice guidelines regarding breast pocket irrigation and implant soaking agents.

Breast Pocket Irrigation with Antibiotic Solution at Implant Insertion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic irrigation is routinely used during implant insertion in augmentation mammoplasty procedures. However, the evidence for whether this reduces the incidence of infection or capsular contracture is unclear.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Five databases were used to search for all randomized control trials, retrospective cohort and prospective cohort studies containing original data related to the primary outcomes being investigated in this study. The primary outcomes were the effects of antibiotic breast pocket irrigation on clinical infection and capsular contracture. The literature search was designed to combine three concepts: implant or tissue expander-based breast surgery, antibiotic irrigation and clinical infection or capsular contracture. Studies found were screened using specific eligibility criteria. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using pooled acquired data from all included studies.

RESULTS

The search identified 1256 citations. Three independent screeners identified seven studies that met the inclusion criteria with a pooled population of 4725. This included one prospective and six retrospective studies. A meta-analysis of pooled study data showed significant reductions in clinical infection (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.81) and capsular contracture (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16-0.83) as a result of antibiotic irrigation.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analyses support the use of antibiotic irrigation of the breast pocket. However, the results of this study are limited by the large proportion of retrospective studies, the small number of studies included, the lack of randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneity of the antibiotic and control regimes used.

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 .