Discussion: The Questionable Role of Antibiotic Irrigation in Breast Augmentation

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. 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 to 2020 were analyzed for the use and type of antiseptic rinse. The surgeon-reported data were homogenized with regard to terminology and categorized by major trends, and the literature was reviewed.

RESULTS

We analyzed data for 37,143 patients, totaling 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 4200 (5.7%), and Betadine triple antibiotic in 1831 implants (2.5%). Multiple other antiseptic permutations were noted in 7004 implants (9.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmacokinetics of Locally Applied Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Importance

Antibiotic irrigation of breast implants is widely used internationally, but no clinical study has investigated the pharmacokinetics of antibiotic prophylaxis in the breast implant pocket.

Objectives

To evaluate how long locally applied gentamicin, cefazolin, and vancomycin concentrations in the implant pocket remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for the most common bacterial infections and to measure systemic uptake.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study was performed at the Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, between October 25, 2021, and September 22, 2022, among 40 patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction who were part of the ongoing BREAST-AB trial (Prophylactic Treatment of Breast Implants With a Solution of Gentamicin, Vancomycin and Cefazolin Antibiotics for Women Undergoing Breast Reconstructive Surgery: a Randomized Controlled Trial). Patients were randomized to receive locally applied gentamicin, cefazolin, and vancomycin or placebo. Samples were obtained from the surgical breast drain and blood up to 10 days postoperatively.

Exposures

The breast implant and the implant pocket were irrigated with 160 μg/mL of gentamicin, 2000 μg/mL of cefazolin, and 2000 μg/mL of vancomycin in a 200-mL saline solution.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic concentrations above the MIC breakpoint for Staphylococcus aureus according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: gentamicin, 4 μg/mL; cefazolin, 2 μg/mL; and vancomycin, 2 μg/mL. Secondary outcomes included the time above the MIC for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other relevant bacteria, as well as systemic uptake.

Results

The study included 40 patients (median age, 44.6 years [IQR, 38.3-51.4 years]; median body mass index, 23.9 [IQR, 21.7-25.9]) with a median number of 3 drain samples (range, 1-10 drain samples) and 2 blood samples (range, 0-6 blood samples). Vancomycin and cefazolin remained above the MIC for S aureus significantly longer than gentamicin (gentamicin, 0.9 days [95% CI, 0.5-1.2 days] for blood samples vs 6.9 days [95% CI, 2.9 to 10.9 days] for vancomycin [P = .02] vs 3.7 days [95% CI, 2.2-5.2 days] for cefazolin [P = .002]). The gentamicin level remained above the MIC for P aeruginosa for 1.3 days (95% CI, 1.0-1.5 days). Only cefazolin was detectable in blood samples, albeit in very low concentrations (median concentration, 0.04 μg/mL [range, 0.007-0.1 μg/mL]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that patients treated with triple-antibiotic implant irrigation during breast reconstruction receive adequate prophylaxis for S aureus and other common implant-associated, gram-positive bacteria. However, the protection against P aeruginosa may be inadequate.

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

Implants and Breast Pocket Irrigation: Outcomes of Antibiotic, Antiseptic, and Saline Irrigation

BACKGROUND

Breast implant-associated infection and capsular contracture are challenging complications that can result in poor outcomes following implant-based breast surgery. Antimicrobial irrigation of the breast pocket or implant is a widely accepted strategy to prevent these complications, but the literature lacks an evidence-based consensus on the optimal irrigation solution.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes, specifically capsular contracture, infection, and reoperation rates, associated with the use of antibiotic, antiseptic, and saline irrigation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in March 2020 based on the following search terms: "breast implant," "irrigation," "antibiotic," "bacitracin," "antiseptic," "povidone iodine," "betadine," "low concentration chlorhexidine," and "hypochlorous acid." Capsular contracture, infection, and reoperation rates were compared by analysis of forest plots.

RESULTS

Out of the 104 articles screened, 14 met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in capsular contracture rates between antibiotic and povidone-iodine irrigation, although the data comparing these 2 groups were limited and confounded by the concurrent use of steroids. Antibiotic irrigation showed a significantly lower rate of capsular contracture compared with saline irrigation and a lower rate of capsular contracture and reoperation compared with no irrigation at all. Povidone-iodine was associated with lower rates of capsular contracture and reoperation compared with saline irrigation but there were no data on infection rates specific to povidone-iodine irrigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the use of antibiotics or povidone-iodine for breast implant irrigation. Further research is required to better determine which of these 2 irrigation types is superior.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Controllable Factors to Reduce the Rate of Complications in Primary Breast Augmentation: A Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Aesthetic augmentation mammoplasties are one of the most demanded procedures performed in the aesthetic surgical sector. Because of the high epidemiological impact, the evaluation of measures to reduce the risk of complications is highly needed. The goal of this review is to evaluate the current literature for successful actions to reduce the risk of complications in aesthetic breast augmentation.

METHODS

We searched Medline-listed journals for "complications primary breast augmentation" and defined surgeon-dependent and patient-dependent factors within those.

RESULTS

Most of the strategies to reduce the risk of any complication are based on meticulous hygienic precautions and adequate training of the surgeon. The current literature suggests complications such as capsular contracture, infection and BIA-ALCL are closely linked with bacterial contamination and therefore can be avoided with different hygienic measures.

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 .

Etiology of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL): Current Directions in Research

Simple Summary

The first report of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) was in 1997. Although BIA-ALCL develops around breast implants, it is considered a cancer of the immune system and not a cancer of the breast ducts or lobules. Nearly all confirmed cases to date have been associated with textured surface (versus smooth surface) breast implants. As physicians have become more aware of BIA-ALCL, so has the number of reported cases, although the number of cases remains low. In most instances, patients have an excellent prognosis following removal of the breast implant and its surrounding fibrous capsule. Many theories on factors that trigger the development of BIA-ALCL, such as the presence of bacteria, have been proposed. However, the sequence(s) of events that follow the initial triggering event(s) have not been fully determined. This article summarizes the current scientific knowledge on the development of BIA-ALCL.

Abstract

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a CD30-positive, anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative T-cell lymphoma. Where implant history is known, all confirmed cases to date have occurred in patients with exposure to textured implants. There is a spectrum of disease presentation, with the most common occurring as a seroma with an indolent course. A less common presentation occurs as locally advanced or, rarely, as metastatic disease. Here we review the immunological characteristics of BIA-ALCL and potential triggers leading to its development. BIA-ALCL occurs in an inflammatory microenvironment with significant lymphocyte and plasma cell infiltration and a prominent Th1/Th17 phenotype in advanced disease. Genetic lesions affecting the JAK/STAT signaling pathway are commonly present. Proposed triggers for the development of malignancy include mechanical friction, silicone implant shell particulates, silicone leachables, and bacteria. Of these, the bacterial hypothesis has received significant attention, supported by a plausible biologic model. In this model, bacteria form an adherent biofilm in the favorable environment of the textured implant surface, producing a bacterial load that elicits a chronic inflammatory response. Bacterial antigens, primarily of Gram-negative origin, may trigger innate immunity and induce T-cell proliferation with subsequent malignant transformation in genetically susceptible individuals. Although much remains to be elucidated regarding the multifactorial origins of BIA-ALCL, future research should focus on prevention and treatment strategies, recognizing susceptible populations, and whether decreasing the risk of BIA-ALCL is possible.

Antibiotic treatment and prophylaxis of periprosthetic infections: Evaluation of 666 consecutive breast implant removals

Periprosthetic infections are feared complications in esthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. The purpose of our study is to evaluate our institution's specific culture data and to identify most common organisms and suitable antibiotics for prophylaxis and first-line treatment. We evaluated all patients with a change or removal of breast implants from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2017 retrospectively. Based on the medical records, the surgical indications were identified and specifically analyzed for signs of infection, reasons for primary and secondary surgery, and all available microbiological data of these interventions. A total of 666 implant removals or exchanges were performed in 431 patients. Microbiological smears were gathered from 291 patients (449 implants). Bacteria were cultured from 63 implants (56 patients). In six additional patients (ten implants), a periprosthetic infection was seen, without bacteria detection. Advanced capsular contracture correlated with a higher proportion of positive swabs (p<0.05). In 11.5% of smears, bacterial contamination was found despite absence of clinical signs of infection. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the dominant pathogen in clinical inapparent infections, while Staphylococcus aureus was when there was clinical evidence of infection. All pathogens were sensitive to vancomycin. In the majority of cases, bacterial contamination was an incidental finding, which was more common in the presence of advanced capsular contracture. In our institution, cefuroxime and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid have been proven to be reasonable choices for prevention and treatment of periprosthetic infections. In the treatment of fulminant infections and for the prophylaxis during implant replacement due to advanced capsular contracture, vancomycin became our first choice.

Is Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Better Classified as a Lymphoproliferative Disorder and How Surgeons Reduce Risk?

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a complex topic with evolving classification and etiology. Commonalities between BIA-ALCL and lymphoproliferative disorders exist, suggesting that BIA-ALCL may be better represented on a spectrum of disease from benign effusion to malignant metastatic lymphoma. Meticulous sterile surgical technique, involving the use of betadine-containing irrigation, should be used to decrease the biological burden introduced into the surgical field and possibly prevent future incidences of BIA-ALCL.

Recommendations for the Use of Antibiotics in Primary and Secondary Esthetic Breast Surgery

The use of systemic prophylactic antibiotics to reduce surgical-site infection in esthetic breast surgery remains controversial, although the majority of surgeons prefer to utilize antibiotics to prevent infection. Nonetheless, postoperative acute and subclinical infection and capsular fibrosis are among the most common complications following implant-based breast reconstruction. After esthetic breast augmentation, up to 2.9% of women develop infection, with an incidence rate of 1.7% for acute infections and 0.8% for late infections. After postmastectomy reconstruction (secondary reconstruction), the rates are even higher. The microorganisms seen in acute infections are Gram-positive, whereas subclinical late infections involving microorganisms are typically Gram-negative and from normal skin flora with low virulence. In primary implantation, a weight-based dosing of cefazolin is adequate, an extra duration of antibiotic cover does not provide further reduction in superficial or periprosthetic infections. Clindamycin and vancomycin are recommended alternative for patients with β-lactam allergies. The spectrum of microorganism found in late infections varies (Gram-positive and Gram-negative), and the antibiotic prophylaxis (fluoroquinolones) should be extended by vancomycin and according to the antibiogram when replacing implants and in secondary breast reconstruction, to target microorganisms associated with capsular contracture. All preoperative antibiotics should be administered <60 minutes before incision to guarantee high serum levels during surgical procedure.