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

Endoscopic Primary Breast Augmentation With Loco-Regional Anesthesia: Preliminary Experience of 200 Consecutive Patients

Background

Breast augmentation with implants recorded over 1.6 billion procedures globally in 2022. To reduce surgical trauma and complications and facilitate a fast recovery, we employ an ultrasound-guided local-regional anesthesia technique, the creation of a partial submuscular implant pocket by direct endoscopic visualization and minimal skin access on the mammary fold.

Objectives

The aim in this study is to evaluate whether breast augmentation performed in endoscopy under local-regional anesthesia reduces postoperative recovery time, reduces complications, and increases patient satisfaction.

Methods

Patients provided their consent through a signed form. We set strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. We prospectively evaluated postoperative pain and recovery times, the rate of complications, and patient satisfaction at 12 months postsurgery.

Results

Between January 2021 and September 2022, 200 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average operation time was 54.2 min. Patients were discharged from the hospital within 2 to 3 h. Eighty-nine percent of patients expressed great satisfaction with the result. None of the patients experienced postsurgical complications.

Conclusions

In our initial study, we showed that endoscopic breast augmentation conducted under localized anesthesia is safe. It allows for quick recovery postsurgery and swift resumption of everyday activities. The overall complication risk is less than what has been reported in scientific studies for the classic dual-plane technique. Moreover, this approach yields excellent patient satisfaction. Additional prospective and randomized studies will be required to enhance the scientific validity of this technique. Moreover, a larger patient cohort will be essential to stratify the risks associated with varying prosthetic volumes.

Level of Evidence 4

Alternative Hydration of the Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) to Reduce the Rate of Infection of Breast Reconstructions

Level of Evidence IV 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 .

The Effect of Early Cultures and Dual-port Expanders on Two-stage, Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: The 25/25 Study

Background

Two-stage tissue expander to implant surgery remains the predominant technique for breast reconstruction. Unfortunately, there is a high incidence of reconstruction failure which portends a financial and emotional burden. Most failures are related to postmastectomy skin flap necrosis and infection. Recently, a dual-port tissue expander was introduced to the market, and the authors hypothesize that early cultures from the peri-implant fluid will guide antibiotic treatment and decrease reconstruction failure.

Methods

This is a cohort study of 50 consecutive patients treated for breast cancer or genetic susceptibility via a two-stage, prepectoral technique. The first 25 patients (46 breasts) were treated with a variety of tissue expanders, and the subsequent 25 patients (47 breasts) received a dual-port expander. Routine cultures from the drain port were taken from the dual-port group at the second postoperative visit, and cultures were taken in the control group only when signs of infection were present. All other procedures and interventions were similar.

Results

Fifty patients, totaling 93 breasts, completed the study with a mean follow-up of 145 days. There were no statistically significant demographic or pathologic differences between groups. Fifteen tissue expanders were explanted in the control group and five in the dual-port cohort (32.6% versus 10.6%, P = 0.012). All bacteria in the control group failures were either methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Staphylococcus epidermidis, whereas failures in the dual-port group varied.

Conclusion

Treatment of routine, early cultures from a dual-port expander led to a statistically significant decrease in tissue expander explantation.

Chlorhexidine gluconate pocket lavage to prevent cardiac implantable electronic device infection in high-risk procedures

BACKGROUND

Infection is the most dreaded complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), particularly in patients undergoing high-risk procedures (eg, generator change, device upgrade, lead/pocket revision).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the impact of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) pocket lavage in high-risk procedures.

METHODS

Patients from a prospective multicenter registry undergoing high-risk procedures were included. CHG lavage was performed by irrigating the generator pocket with 20 cc of 2% CHG without alcohol followed by and normal saline (NS) irrigation. Only NS irrigation was performed in the comparison group. The primary efficacy outcome was CIED-related infection at 12 months. The primary safety outcome was any CHG-associated adverse event. The secondary outcome was CIED infection during long-term follow-up. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed for the primary efficacy outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 1504 patients were included. At 12-month follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 4 of 904 CHG (0.4%) and 14 of 600 NS (2.3%) subjects (log-rank P = .005). On multivariate analysis, the use of CHG irrigation was associated with a lower risk of infection at 1-year follow-up (Cox proportional hazard ratio [HR] 0.138; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.45; P = .001). This effect persisted during long-term follow-up. PSM demonstrated a significant reduction in CIED-related infection for the CHG group (0.2% vs 2.5%; Cox proportional HR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.59; P = .014). No adverse events were associated with the use of CHG.

CONCLUSION

CHG lavage during high-risk procedures was associated with a reduction in CIED-related infections without any adverse events reported. The benefits of CHG lavage were observed even during long-term follow up and in PSM analysis.

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.

COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Capsular Contracture Following Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Retrospective, Multicenter Nested Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Capsular contracture (CC) is a common long-term complication following prosthetic-based breast reconstruction (PBBR). Seven cases of CC following mRNA vaccination for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) are reported in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine whether receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was associated with CC development following PBBR.

METHODS

A retrospective, multicenter nested case-control study was performed from January 2014 to July 2022 of adult female patients who underwent PBBR with acellular dermal matrix placement. Cases of CC were selected if no adjuvant radiation was received and they presented for follow-up between December 2020 and July 2022. Controls included patients who met inclusion criteria but who did not experience CC in either breast. Patient demographics, breast cancer characteristics, reconstructive surgery details, postoperative complications, and COVID-19 exposure details were analyzed and correlated with CC development.

RESULTS

Of a total of 230 patients (393 breasts) who received PBBR, 85 patients (135 breasts) met inclusion criteria, of whom 12 patients (19 breasts) developed CC and 73 patients (116 breasts) did not. At the time of median follow-up of 18.1 months (n = 85; interquartile range, 12.2-33.6 months), no statistically significant differences were observed between the short- or long-term complications in cases or controls. There were no significant differences in COVID-19 vaccination status, number of vaccine doses, or vaccination type between cases and controls. Vaccination status was not associated with greater odds of CC development (odds ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.42-5.37; P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct association between CC and COVID-19 vaccination is difficult to prove. Given the known risk of severe COVID-19 infection among immunocompromised patients, those with breast cancer who undergo PBBR should be properly counseled on the benefits and risks of vaccination.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

The Role of Microorganisms in the Development of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a variant of anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) associated with textured-surface silicone breast implants. Since first being described in 1997, over 1100 cases have been currently reported worldwide. A causal relationship between BIA-ALCL and textured implants has been established in epidemiological studies, but a multifactorial process is likely to be involved in the pathogenesis of BIA-ALCL. However, pathophysiologic mechanisms remain unclear. One of the hypotheses that could explain the link between textured implants and BIA-ALCL consists in the greater tendency of bacterial biofilm in colonizing the surface of textured implants compared to smooth implants, and the resulting chronic inflammation which, in predisposed individuals, may lead to tumorigenesis. This review summarizes the existing evidence on the role of micro-organisms and rough surface implants in the development of BIA-ALCL. It also provides insights into the most updated clinical practice knowledge about BIA-ALCL, from clinical presentation and investigation to treatment and outcomes.

Preventing Infection in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Evaluating the Evidence for Common Practices and Standardized Protocols

Infection following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) results in increased rates of hospital readmission, reoperation, patient and hospital expenses, and reconstructive failure. IBBR is a complex, multistep procedure, and there is a relative lack of high-quality plastic surgery evidence regarding "best practices" in the prevention of implant infections. In the absence of strong data, standardizing procedures based on available evidence can reduce error and improve efficacy and outcomes.

Methods

We performed a focused literature review of the available evidence supporting specific interventions for infection prevention in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care that are applicable to IBBR. In addition, we examined previously published standardized perioperative protocols for implant reconstruction.

Results

Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative planning and organization is crucial in IBBR. Preoperative planning involves skin decolonization in advance of surgery with either chlorhexidine gluconate or mupirocin. Intraoperative methods that have shown potential benefit include double-gloving, breast pocket irrigation, separate closing instruments, and the utilization of "no-touch" techniques. In the postoperative period, the duration of drain removal and postoperative antibiotic administration play an important role in the prevention of surgical site infection.

Conclusions

There is a crucial need to establish an evidence-based set of "best practices" for IBBR, and there exists a paucity of evidence in the breast literature. These data can be utilized to develop a standardized protocol as part of a rigorous quality improvement methodology.