Wound infection in breast augmentation: the role of prophylactic perioperative antibiotics

The Role of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Primary and Secondary Implant-Based Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for implant-based breast augmentation (IBBA) is commonplace among many plastic surgeons. However, the current literature lacks evidence-based recommendations to support this practice. Although few studies have demonstrated a reduction in surgical site infection (SSI) and capsular contracture (CC) with antibiotics, these studies were underpowered and poorly designed. The aim of this study was to provide an updated comprehensive analysis of the literature to revisit the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane was performed from January 1989 to January 2022. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving primary and secondary IBBA and use of antibiotic prophylaxis were included. Primary outcomes included SSI and CC. Study quality and risk of bias were evaluated using standardized tools. A meta-analysis was performed for eligible studies. Trial Sequential Analysis was used to assess the need for future RCTs.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies (3 observational and 2 RCTs) with 2383 patients were included in this study. Rates of SSI ranged from 0% to 2.3%, whereas CC ranged from 0% to 53%. Antibiotic prophylaxis showed no benefit for both SSI (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-4.13) and CC (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-45.72). Trial Sequential Analysis demonstrated that further high-quality RCTs are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic prophylaxis for IBBA failed to demonstrate improvements in SSI and CC in this comprehensive review. Current evidence was shown to be of low quality because of heterogeneity and high risk for bias. Further high-quality multicentered RCTs are warranted to fully evaluate the role of antibiotic prophylaxis for IBBA.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean and clean-contaminated plastic surgery: A critical review

Antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently used in plastic surgery procedures, despite the generally low rates of infection and few guidelines on the practice. The increasing prevalence of bacterial resistance to antibiotics calls for a reduction in unnecessary antibiotic use. The aim of this review was to create an updated summary of the available data on the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the postoperative infection in clean and clean-contaminated plastic surgery. A systematic literature search was performed on the databases Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus, limited to articles published January 2000 onward. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the primary review, whereas older RCTs and other studies were sought if 2 or fewer relevant RCTs were identified. Overall, 28 relevant RCTs, 2 nonrandomized trials, and 15 cohort studies were identified. Although the number of studies for each type of surgery is limited, the data suggest that prophylactic systemic antibiotic may be unnecessary in noncontaminated facial plastic surgery, reduction mammaplasty, and breast augmentation. In addition, no benefit is apparent from extending the antibiotic prophylaxis over 24 h in rhinoplasty, aerodigestive tract reconstruction, and breast reconstruction. No studies assessing the necessity of antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominoplasty, lipotransfer, soft tissue tumor surgery, or gender affirmation surgery were identified. In conclusion, limited data are available on the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in clean and clean-contaminated plastic surgery. More studies on this topic are needed before strong recommendations can be made on the use of antibiotics in this setting.

Does the Duration of Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis Influence the Incidence of Postoperative Surgical-Site Infections in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Women with Breast Cancer? A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is an established concept to reduce the risk of surgical-site infections; however, the optimal treatment duration in prosthetic breast reconstruction is still controversial. This study evaluated a potential association between the perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis duration (≤24 hours versus >24 hours) and incidence of postoperative surgical-site infections in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

A descriptive, retrospective analysis of surgical-site infections after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients between January of 2011 and December of 2018 was performed. The incidence of postoperative surgical-site infections in patients with more than 24 hours of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was compared to patients treated for 24 hours or less.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients who met criteria were included. There were no relevant epidemiologic, clinical, or histopathologic differences between groups. Surgical-site infections as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria occurred in 25.8 percent. A risk factor-adjusted analysis by a prespecified multiple logistic regression model showed that 24 hours or less of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was not inferior to treatment for more than 24 hours. The upper limit of the one-sided 95 percent confidence interval of the risk difference was 9.4 percent (below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 10 percent leading to statistical significance). Risk factors for a surgical-site infection included obesity and postoperative wound complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found no association between short-course perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (≤24 hours) and an increased rate of postoperative surgical-site infection. This is of high clinical relevance because short-course treatment can help reduce side effects and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and prevent surgical-site infections as effectively as a prolonged perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis course.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

The Impact of a Multidisciplinary Approach Protocol and Integrated Guidelines for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Plastic Surgery Procedures

BACKGROUND

Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis has been widely used for prevention of surgical site infections (SSI's). World Health Organization (WHO) global guidelines strongly recommend the administration of pre-operative prophylactic antibiotic, depending on the type of surgery, to reduce SSI's. However, within Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, antibiotic resistance has been rising due to unregulated prescribing practice. We aimed to assess adherence to local/international guidelines in the plastic surgery unit of Salmaniya Medical Complex.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of adults' undergoing plastic surgery between the dates of 1^st of January 2019 to 30^th of April 2019. Recommendations and guidelines were provided by South Australian Guidelines for Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis, NHS Greater-Glasgow Foundation Trust. Salmaniya Medical Complex Guidelines were also taken into consideration. This was followed by an implementation of standardized guidelines and a re-assessment period for another four months.

RESULTS

There were 106 patients who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria throughout the primary cohort. With respect to choice and dose of antibiotics, only 21 (19.8%) of the procedures were adherent to global/local guidelines. Similarly, only 11.5% of those cases have met the recommended timing for pre-operative antibiotic administration. After the implementation period, adherence to guidelines regarding choice and time of antibiotic administration has increased to 36.8% and 32.6% respectively. SSI decreased from 1.8% to 0.08%.

CONCLUSION

Practice in SMC in plastic surgery pre-operative antibiotic prophylaxis shows poor compliance to both local and international guidelines in terms of choice, dose, and time of administration. We were able to significantly improve adherence to international/local practice in both areas by implementing an integrated protocol in liaison with the medical staff involved in the plastic surgery unit and operating theatres.

Periprosthetic Infection in Primary and Secondary Augmentation Mammoplasty Using Round Silicone Gel Breast Implants: Comparative Analysis of 2521 Primary and 386 Secondary Mammoplasties in a Single Surgeon Practice

INTRODUCTION

Wounds are generally classified as clean, clean contaminated, contaminated and dirty. Aesthetic surgery, including breast augmentation, is classified as clean or clean contaminated. The presence of bacteria on the skin, in nipple secretions, in superficial and deep parenchymal samples and also the presence of bacteria in capsules and on implants justifies the use of antibiotics. However, there is a paucity of information about whether added bacterial flora on the capsule of the implant pockets, and the handling of these capsules as capsulotomy or capsulectomy makes secondary augmentation mammoplasty more prone to wound healing issues or periprosthetic infection. The current study is the analysis carried out between primary and secondary augmentation mammoplasties to look at the incidence of periprosthetic infection between the two groups.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective data analysis for periprosthetic infection and wound healing issues following primary and secondary augmentation mammoplasties performed between April 1999 and April 2019 was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 2521 (5042 breasts) primary and 386 (772 breasts) secondary augmentation mammoplasty data were available for analysis. Periprosthetic infection was seen in 0.7% and 0.5% of the primary and secondary augmentations, respectively, with no significant difference. Wound healing issues were significantly higher in primary augmentation mammoplasty.

CONCLUSION

There was a marginally higher incidence of periprosthetic infection in primary augmentation mammoplasty as compared to secondary augmentation mammoplasty; however, the difference was not significant. On the contrary, the wound healing and superficial skin issues were higher in primary as compared to secondary augmentation mammoplasty, and the difference was statistically significant.

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 .

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.

Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery has been used as part of breast cancer treatment for centuries; however any surgical procedure has the potential risk of infection. Infection rates for surgical treatment of breast cancer are documented at between 3% and 15%, higher than average for a clean surgical procedure. Pre- and perioperative antibiotics have been found to be useful in lowering infection rates in other surgical groups, yet there is no consensus on the use of prophylactic antibiotics for breast cancer surgery. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of prophylactic (pre- or perioperative) antibiotics on the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after breast cancer surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this fourth update, in August 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of pre- and perioperative antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. Primary outcomes were rates of surgical site infection (SSI) and adverse reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently examined the title and abstracts of all studies identified by the search strategy, then assessed study quality and extracted data from those that met the inclusion criteria. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 11 randomised controlled trials (2867 participants) were included in the review. No new studies were identified in this update. All studies included breast cancer patients and were based in the hospital setting. Ten studies evaluated preoperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic or placebo. One study evaluated perioperative antibiotic compared with placebo or no antibiotic. Pooling of the results demonstrated that prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively probably reduce the incidence of SSI for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery without reconstruction (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.85; moderate certainty evidence). Anticipated absolute effects were calculated for the outcome incidence of SSI; 105 per 1000 for the none or placebo group and 71 per 1000 (95% CI 56 to 89) for the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis group. Analysis of the single study comparing perioperative antibiotic with no antibiotic was inconclusive for incidence of SSI (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.95; very low certainty evidence). No studies presented separate data for patients who underwent reconstructive surgery at the time of removal of the breast tumour.Secondary outcomes were not consistently included in the studies investigating preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in incidence of adverse events between the treatment and no treatment or placebo groups (10 studies, 2818 participants); very low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious risk of bias, one level for serious inconsistency and one level for serious imprecision. It is unclear whether there is a difference in time to onset of infection between the treatment and no treatment or placebo groups (4 studies, 1450 participants); low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and one level for serious inconsistency. It is unclear whether there is a difference in rates of readmission to hospital between the treatment and placebo groups (3 studies, 784 participants); low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious inconsistency and one level for serious risk of bias. It is unclear whether there is a difference in cost of care between the treatment and no treatment or placebo groups (2 studies, 510 participants); low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and one level for serious inconsistency. No analysable secondary outcome data were reported for the single study evaluating perioperative antibiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively probably reduce the risk of SSI in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. However, it is very uncertain whether there is an effect on incidence of adverse events. Furthermore, the effects on time to onset of infection, readmission to hospital and cost of care remain unclear. Further studies are required to establish the best protocols for clinical practice.

Surgical Site Infections in Aesthetic Surgery

Surgical site infections represent one of the most common postoperative complications in patients undergoing aesthetic surgery. As with other postoperative complications, the incidence of these infections may be influenced by many factors and varies depending on the specific operation performed. Understanding the risk factors for infection development is critical because careful patient selection and appropriate perioperative counseling will set the right expectations and can ultimately improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. Various perioperative prevention measures may also be employed to minimize the incidence of these infections. Once the infection occurs, prompt diagnosis will allow management of the infection and any associated complications in a timely manner to ensure patient safety, optimize the postoperative course, and avoid long-term sequelae.

Is antibiotic prophylaxis in breast augmentation necessary? A prospective study

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic antibiotics in breast augmentation remains controversial. However, the majority of surgeons are administering antibiotics.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of antibiotic(s) use in the incidence of infection and capsular contracture following breast augmentation.

METHODS

From September 2004 to November 2010, 180 patients underwent primary bilateral breast augmentation. They were prospectively divided into two equal groups: in group A (n=90), no antibiotics were given and, in group B (n=90), only one intravenous dose of cephalosporin was administered during the induction of general anesthesia. Preoperative data included age, body mass index, smoking status, medical history and implant volume. All operations were performed by the same surgeon using the same surgical technique and implant type. No drains were used. Operative data included operative time and estimated blood loss. Patients were evaluated for complications such as infection, hematoma and capsular contracture. The study concluded when all of the patients underwent the one-year follow-up. The Student's t test was used to analyze the results.

RESULTS

All patients completed the study and both groups had similar demographic data. No differences in operative data were observed. The mean operative time was 35 min and the mean blood loss was found to be minimal. In group A, no implant infections were reported, while a wound infection that occurred was treated successfully with oral antibiotics. In group B, no implant or wound infection was noticed. No capsular contractures or hematomas were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of patients who underwent primary breast augmentation without antibiotics (n=90) was insufficient to draw any definitive conclusions. However, the present prospective study demonstrated that prophylactic use of antibiotics in breast augmentation had no significant effect on infection and capsular contracture rates. Further randomized clinical trials, in combination with guidelines from aesthetic plastic surgery societies, appear to be warranted.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Major Surgical Site Infections in Aesthetic Surgery: Analysis of 129,007 Patients

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent one of the most common postoperative complications in patients undergoing aesthetic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

This study reports the incidence and risk factors of major SSIs following aesthetic surgery.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients who underwent aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of a major SSI requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated potential risk factors for SSIs including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 129,007 patients were identified, of which 599 (0.46%) had a major SSI. Mean age (43.8 ± 12.4 years vs 40.9 ± 13.9 years, P < .01) and BMI (27.3 ± 5.5 kg/m² vs 24.3 ± 4.6 kg/m², P < .01) were higher in patients with SSIs. Patients with a SSI were more likely to be smokers (10.5% vs 8.2%, P = .04) and diabetic (4.5% vs 1.8%, P < .01). Females suffered more SSI than males (0.5% vs 0.3%, P = .02). Trunk/extremity procedures had a higher incidence of SSI compared to breast or face procedures (0.9% vs 0.2%, P < .01). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of SSI included age (Relative Risk [RR] 1.01), female gender (RR 1.86), BMI (RR 1.07), smoking (RR 1.61), diabetes (RR 1.58), hospital or ambulatory surgery center procedures (RR 1.39), trunk/extremity procedures (RR 2.42), and combined procedures (RR 1.88).

CONCLUSIONS

SSIs following cosmetic surgical procedures are associated with numerous independent predictors, which should be taken into consideration when counseling patients undergoing aesthetic surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 Risk.

Is antibiotic prophylaxis in breast augmentation necessary? A prospective study

Background

The role of prophylactic antibiotics in breast augmentation remains controversial. However, the majority of surgeons are administering antibiotics.

Objective

To investigate the effect of antibiotic(s) use in the incidence of infection and capsular contracture following breast augmentation.

Methods

From September 2004 to November 2010, 180 patients underwent primary bilateral breast augmentation. They were prospectively divided into two equal groups: in group A (n=90), no antibiotics were given and, in group B (n=90), only one intravenous dose of cephalosporin was administered during the induction of general anesthesia. Preoperative data included age, body mass index, smoking status, medical history and implant volume. All operations were performed by the same surgeon using the same surgical technique and implant type. No drains were used. Operative data included operative time and estimated blood loss. Patients were evaluated for complications such as infection, hematoma and capsular contracture. The study concluded when all of the patients underwent the one-year follow-up. The Student's t test was used to analyze the results.

Results

All patients completed the study and both groups had similar demographic data. No differences in operative data were observed. The mean operative time was 35 min and the mean blood loss was found to be minimal. In group A, no implant infections were reported, while a wound infection that occurred was treated successfully with oral antibiotics. In group B, no implant or wound infection was noticed. No capsular contractures or hematomas were observed.

Conclusions

The number of patients who underwent primary breast augmentation without antibiotics (n=90) was insufficient to draw any definitive conclusions. However, the present prospective study demonstrated that prophylactic use of antibiotics in breast augmentation had no significant effect on infection and capsular contracture rates. Further randomized clinical trials, in combination with guidelines from aesthetic plastic surgery societies, appear to be warranted.

Infection prevention in breast implant surgery - A review of the surgical evidence, guidelines and a checklist

INTRODUCTION

As a result of increasing use of implant-based breast reconstruction, complications such as infection are being encountered more frequently. Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) cause morbidity for the patient, can lead to capsular contracture or implant loss and are costly to healthcare systems. National Guidelines suggesting methods to reduce SSI related complications have been produced, but are limited in the scope of interventions covered and underlying evidence presented.

METHODS

We performed a literature review encompassing a wide variety of possible SSI prevention strategies. We aimed to present summaries of the available evidence and give pragmatic recommendations as to their validity to use as guidelines for infection prevention strategies for implant-based breast reconstruction.

RESULTS

A lack of high quality data relating to the benefit of SSI prevention strategies in implant-based breast reconstruction exists. Many papers relate to orthopaedic implant surgery, or clean surgery in general. Following review of the evidence, sufficient data exists to support use of perioperative antibiotics at implant-based breast reconstruction, with continuation for an extended period in "high risk" patients. Alcohol containing skin preparations should be used over aqueous solutions. Laminar air flow use is suggested. Theatre traffic should be kept to a minimum, as should duration of operative procedure. The implant pocket should be washed prior to implantation. Double gloving and conductive warming are also endorsed.

CONCLUSIONS

We have produced a perioperative "Theatre Implant Checklist" for SSI prevention in implant-based breast surgery, with a set of pragmatic up to date guidelines, which allows the reader to evaluate the evidence upon which our recommendations are based.

Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery has been used as part of breast cancer treatment for centuries; however any surgical procedure has the potential risk of infection. Infection rates for surgical treatment of breast cancer are documented at between 3% and 15%, higher than average for a clean surgical procedure. Pre- and perioperative antibiotics have been found to be useful in lowering infection rates in other surgical groups, yet there is no consensus on the use of prophylactic antibiotics for breast cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of prophylactic (pre- or perioperative) antibiotics on the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after breast cancer surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (5 December 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We applied no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of pre- and perioperative antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer were included. Primary outcomes were rates of surgical site infection (SSI) and adverse reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently examined the title and abstracts of all studies identified by the search strategy, then assessed study quality and extracted data from those that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of eleven studies (2867 participants) were included in the review. Ten studies evaluated preoperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic or placebo. One study evaluated perioperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic. Pooling of the results demonstrated that prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively significantly reduce the incidence of SSI for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery without reconstruction (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.85). Analysis of the single study comparing perioperative antibiotic with no antibiotic found no statistically significant effect of antibiotics on the incidence of SSI (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.95). No studies presented separate data for patients who underwent reconstructive surgery at the time of removal of the breast tumour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively reduce the risk of SSI in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. Further studies involving patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction are needed as studies have identified this group as being at higher risk of infection than those who do not undergo immediate breast reconstruction.

Evidence-based medicine: augmentation mammaplasty

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Recognize the role of biofilm in breast implant surgery and possible ways to reduce the incidence of capsular contracture. 2. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of various surgical approaches including the incision placement and implant location. 3. List the advantages and disadvantages of implant characteristics including implant fill, shell surface characteristics, and implant shape. 4. Take steps to avoid the phenomena of double capsule and late seroma.

SUMMARY

This article was prepared to accompany practice-based assessment with ongoing surgical education for the Maintenance of Certification for the American Board of Plastic Surgery. It is structured to outline the care of the patient presenting for cosmetic breast augmentation.

Guideline for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Breast Surgery

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) published the 2012/2013 edition of the book entitled "Best Practices for Hospital & Health-System Pharmacy: Position and Guidance Documents of ASHP" with Bruce Hawkins as the editor. (ISSN: 15558975). Pages 582-667 of this book contain the section: "Therapeutic Guidelines on Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery". This section includes current clinical developments, evidence and recommendations on the application of standard and effective antimicrobial prophylaxis in adult and pediatric patients, and has significant differences compared to the previous 1999 edition. On pages 632-633, antimicrobial prophylaxis in breast and plastic surgery practice is addressed in detail. This article contains a summary of the recommendations made in ASHP 2012/2013 Report regarding the antimicrobial prophylaxis in breast and plastic surgery applications.

Secondary augmentation mammaplasties and periprosthetic infection: a three-year retrospective review

BACKGROUND

Secondary or revision surgery following primary augmentation mammaplasty is common. There are several published studies on the incidence and prevention of infection after primary augmentation mammaplasty, but there is a paucity of information on the incidence of periprosthetic infection after secondary or revision augmentation mammaplasty procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The author evaluates the incidence of periprosthetic infection in a series of revision and secondary mammaplasty patients from his practice.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of the charts for 92 consecutive patients who underwent bilateral secondary mammaplasty with the author between July 2008 and April 2011. Each breast was taken as a single unit, for a total of 184 breasts. The data were compiled and compared with previous studies related to periprosthetic infection following primary augmentation mammaplasty.

RESULTS

The average age of the patients was 35.8±7.9 years (range, 19-54 years). One patient developed unilateral periprosthetic infection in her left breast. This incidence of 0.54% was comparable to infection incidence of 0.5% for primary augmentation mammaplasty previously reported by the author.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, there was no higher incidence of infection seen in secondary augmentation mammaplasty than was seen in previous studies on primary mammaplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Implant infection after augmentation mammaplasty: a review of the literature and report of a multidrug-resistant Candida albicans infection

BACKGROUND

Implant breast augmentation is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures, and fungal infection still is considered exceptional. This report presents a case of bilateral breast implant infection by multidrug-resistant Candida albicans treated with a targeted antifungal therapy.

METHODS

A young woman presented with breast pain and asymmetry as well as implant superficialization in the left breast 3 years after bilateral tuberous breast correction with implant insertion. She did not report any trauma to the chest wall or recent systemic infections. The breast was evaluated through mammary compliance analysis and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

RESULTS

At surgery, both implants showed capsule contracture and were surrounded by a gelatinous yellow-brown and turbid fluid, which was sent for microbial and fungal analysis. A bilateral capsulectomy was performed. After copious irrigation of the subglandular pockets, submuscular pockets were created, and implants were substituted. Culture swabs tested positive for C. albicans and showed drug resistance to amphotericin B, fluconazole, itraconazole, and voriconazole on the fungal antibiogram. Targeted antifungal therapy with caspofungin was administrated in association with oral antibiotic therapy. Follow-up assessment at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months did not show any infection or contracture relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first report in the literature on a breast implant infection by a multidrug-resistant C. albicans. The study focused on the association between fungal contamination and capsular contracture and investigated the importance of a fungal antibiogram in cases of suspected prosthesis infection for performance of a targeted antifungal treatment.

Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery has been used as part of breast cancer treatment for centuries; however any surgical procedure has the potential risk of infection. Infection rates for surgical treatment of breast cancer are documented at between 3% and 15%, higher than average for a clean surgical procedure. Pre- and perioperative antibiotics have been found to be useful in lowering infection rates in other surgical groups, yet there is no consensus on the use of prophylactic antibiotics for breast cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of prophylactic (pre- or perioperative) antibiotics on the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after breast cancer surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 31 August 2011); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE (2008 to August Week 3 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 30 August 2011); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 34); and EBSCO CINAHL (2008 to 25 August 2011). We applied no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of pre- and perioperative antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer were included. Primary outcomes were rates of surgical site infection (SSI) and adverse reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently examined the title and abstracts of all studies identified by the search strategy, then assessed study quality and extracted data from those that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of nine studies (2260 participants) is included in the review. Eight studies evaluated preoperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic or placebo. One study evaluated perioperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic. Pooling of the results demonstrated that prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively significantly reduce the incidence of SSI for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery without reconstruction (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.94). Analysis of the single study comparing perioperative antibiotic with no antibiotic found no statistically significant effect of antibiotics on the incidence of SSI (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.95). No studies presented separate data for patients who underwent reconstructive surgery at the time of removal of the breast tumour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively reduce the risk of SSI in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. Further studies involving patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction are needed as studies have identified this group as being at higher risk of infection than those who do not undergo immediate breast reconstruction.

Evaluating the role of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics in primary and secondary breast augmentation: a retrospective review

BACKGROUND

The use of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics following augmentation mammaplasty remains a controversial topic, with many surgeons opting for extended prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

The authors evaluate the role of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics in both primary and secondary cosmetic breast augmentation.

METHODS

A five-year retrospective chart review was performed on all patients undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation at a single institution from January 2005 to December 2009. The four attending physicians in this study utilized similar perioperative protocol and implant materials. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who had received three days of postoperative antibiotics (primarily cephalosporins) and those who had not. End points of particular interest included infection, capsular contracture (CC), and local wound complications. The mean follow-up time was 3.8 years.

RESULTS

A total of 605 implants were included over the five-year study period. The overall infection rate was 0.66%. For primary augmentation, 493 implants were studied, with 52% of those patients having received postoperative antibiotics. There was no statistically significant reduction in infection, CC, or total complication rate for those receiving postoperative antibiotics. Similarly, 112 implants were studied for secondary augmentation, and again, postoperative antibiotics were not associated with a reduction in complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that there was no reduction in the overall rate of total complications, infection, or CC with postoperative prophylactic antibiotics for either primary or secondary cosmetic breast augmentation. This study provides Level 3 evidence in support of discontinuing prophylactic postoperative antibiotics following cosmetic breast augmentation.

Prophylactic antibiotics in aesthetic surgery

Improvements in infection prevention practices over the past several decades have enhanced outcomes following aesthetic surgery. However, surgical site infections (SSI) continue to result in increased morbidity, mortality, and cost of care. The true incidence rate of SSI in aesthetic surgery is unknown due to the lack of a national surveillance system, but studies of SSI across surgical specialties have suggested that many of these infections are preventable. Patient-related factors-including obesity, glycemic control, and tobacco use-may contribute to the development of SSI following aesthetic surgery. In terms of SSI prevention, proper handwashing and surgical skin preparation are integral. Furthermore, the administration of prophylactic antibiotics has been shown to reduce SSI following many types of surgical procedures. Unfortunately, there are few large, randomized studies examining the role of prophylactic antibiotics in aesthetic surgery. The authors review the medical literature, discuss the risks of antibiotic overutilization, and detail nonpharmacological methods for reducing the risk of SSI.

Breast augmentation, antibiotic prophylaxis, and infection: comparative analysis of 1,628 primary augmentation mammoplasties assessing the role and efficacy of antibiotics prophylaxis duration

BACKGROUND

Infections after augmentation mammoplasty are not uncommon, and prophylactic antibiotics are routinely administered to minimize infection. However, there is paucity of information on the relationship between the length of prophylaxis cover and its benefits in primary augmentation mammoplasty. A retrospective analysis of different antibiotic cover regimens, their effectiveness in preventing infections, and the management of infection in established cases is reviewed.

METHODS

A retrospective chart analysis of periprosthetic infections in primary augmentation mammoplasties performed over the past 10 years was conducted. Periprosthetic infection was determined by the presence of pain, swelling, redness, and discharge. Each breast was taken as an individual unit in 1,628 patients, and data for 3,256 breasts were analyzed. The patients had their augmentation in the partial submuscular plane (214 breasts in 107 patients), the subglandular plane (1,548 breasts in 774 patients), and the muscle-splitting biplane (1,494 breasts in 747 patients). All the patients had soft round cohesive gel silicone implants. Of the 3,256 implants, 3,218 were textured, and 38 were smooth surfaced. The patients received antibiotics as a single intravenous dose of cephalosporin (474 breasts in 237 patients), a single intravenous dose plus an oral dose for 24 h (344 breasts in 172 patients), or a single intravenous dose plus an oral course for 5 days (2,438 breasts in 1,219 patients). Infection was recorded as superficial (e.g., wound breakdown, stitch extrusion, stitch abscess) or deep (periprosthetic). The patients with established periprosthetic infections, determined clinically by the presence of pain, discharge, swelling, and redness of the breasts, were managed either conservatively using antibiotics, passive wound drainage, and healing of the wound with secondary intention or by explantation and replacement after 3 to 4 months. In selected cases of periprosthetic infection, the implants were removed after a course of antibiotics and negative swab cultures. The cavity was washed thoroughly with betadine and saline, and new implants were simultaneously reimplanted.

RESULTS

The incidence of infection was lowest with a single perioperative dose of intravenous antibiotic compared with a combination of intravenous and oral antibiotics. Superficial infection was seen in 38 breasts (all unilateral), with an incidence of 1.2%, and periprosthetic infection was observed in 17 breasts (13 unilateral and 2 bilateral), giving an infection incidence of 0.52% (p = 0.002). In patients with a single intravenous dose of antibiotic, superficial and periprosthetic infection was seen in four breasts (0.8%) and no breasts, respectively. The difference was not significant (p = 0.13). The patients receiving a single intravenous antibiotic and a 24-h oral antibiotic had superficial and periprosthetic infection rates of 2.3% (8 breasts) and 0.3% (1 breast), respectively, and the difference between the two sub-groups was significantly higher (p = 0.04). The patients receiving an intravenous antibiotic and 5 days of oral antibiotics had superficial and periprosthetic infection rates of 1.1% (26 breasts) and 0.65% (14 breasts), respectively. The difference between the two subgroups was not significant (p = 0.09). Of the 17 periprosthetic infections in 15 patients (13 unilateral and 2 bilateral), 11 breasts (1 bilateral and 9 unilateral) were treated conservatively using antibiotics, passive drainage, and wound healing with secondary intention. Capsular contracture developed in two of the conservatively treated breasts, requiring capsulotomies with change of implants. Of the six periprosthetic infections in six patients, requiring surgical intervention, two implants were treated using explantation with immediate replacement after a course of antibiotics and a negative culture, and two implants were explanted followed by reimplantation later. One patient had both implants removed after unilateral infection, and no reimplantation was performed. One patient had a bilateral infection. In this case, one implant was explanted and the other was treated conservatively. The patient had bilateral reimplantion 6 months later, and bilateral Baker 4 capsular contracture developed in both breasts within 6 months. No other complications were seen in the patients who underwent surgery.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of intravenous antibiotic is adequate for prophylaxis in breast augmentation surgery, and the extra duration of antibiotic cover does not result in reduced superficial or periprosthetic infections. Infection can be managed in more than one way depending on the nature, degree, and extent of infection.

Infections after plastic procedures: incidences, etiologies, risk factors, and antibiotic prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Through a review of the English literature, this study aimed to assess the incidence, etiology, risk factors, and preventive measures for postoperative infections occurring after plastic surgery operations.

METHODS

All studies describing the occurrence of infections after plastic surgery procedures including case reports, prospective trials, and retrospective series were selected.

RESULTS

The 85 articles analyzed showed that incidences differ greatly among procedures and seem to be influenced by different and specific risk factors for each operation. Etiologic agents are primarily bacteria, although mycobacteria, virus, and fungi also have been described. No agreement exists on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis, except for abdominoplasties, because few specific prospective trials are present in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Infections remain an important problem in plastic surgery with different points that still need to be clarified. Hopefully, in the future prospective randomized trials will definitively address this issue in order to provide plastic surgeons with clear and unbiased guidelines on its prevention and management.

Current use of antibiotic prophylaxis in breast surgery: A nationwide survey

There is currently no consensus regarding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in breast surgery. This postal survey aimed to establish the current practice in perioperative antibiotic use for breast surgery in the United Kingdom. Questionnaires were sent to 406 breast surgeons, enquiring about antibiotic use for common breast procedures. A total of 266 completed questionnaires were returned (65.5%). Over 80% of surgeons who performed breast augmentations, myocutaneous flap reconstructions and implant reconstructions used antibiotic prophylaxis. Up to 33% used antibiotic prophylaxis for wide local excisions (WLEs), mastectomies and axillary surgery for breast cancer, while 62% and 45% used antibiotics for breast reductions and duct excisions, respectively. The most common antibiotic used was co-amoxiclav. The variation in practice regarding antibiotic prophylaxis in breast surgery reflects the lack of reliable evidence for its efficacy. Further randomised controlled trials are required, taking into consideration specific risk factors affecting postoperative infection rate for breast surgery.

Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery has been used as part of breast cancer treatment for centuries; however any surgical procedure has the potential risk of infection. Infection rates for surgical treatment of breast cancer are documented at between three and 15%, higher than average for a clean surgical procedure. Pre and peri-operative antibiotics have been found to be useful in lowering infection rates in other surgical groups, yet there is no current consensus on prophylactic antibiotic use in breast cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of prophylactic antibiotics on the incidence of surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds and Breast Cancer Groups Specialised Registers, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) issue 1 2006. MEDLINE 2002-2005, EMBASE 1980-2005, NRR issue 1 2005, CINAHL 1982-2004 and SIGLE 1976-2004. Companies and experts in the field were contacted and reference lists were checked. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of pre and peri-operative antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer were included. Primary outcomes were, incidence of breast wound infection and adverse reactions to treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently examined the title and abstracts of all studies identified by the search strategy, then assessed study quality and extracted data from those that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria. All six evaluated pre-operative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic or placebo. Pooling of the results demonstrated that prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduce the incidence of surgical site infection for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery without reconstruction (pooled RR 0.66, 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89). No studies presented separate data for patients who underwent reconstructive surgery at the time of removal of the breast tumour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics reduce the risk of surgical site infection in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. The potential morbidity caused by infection, such as delays in wound healing or adjuvant cancer treatments must be balanced against the cost of treatment and potential adverse effects such as drug reactions or increased bacterial resistance. Further studies of patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction would be useful as studies have identified this group as being at higher risk of infection than those who do not undergo immediate breast reconstruction.

Antibiotic use in aesthetic surgery: a national survey and literature review

Although much has been written regarding the use of antibiotics in surgery, no clear guidelines exist in the literature regarding the use of antibiotics in aesthetic surgery. To determine the pattern of antibiotic use in aesthetic surgery, a comprehensive survey was mailed to 6000 American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons members and candidates. A total of 1767 completed responses were returned, which represents a response rate of 30 percent. The type, route, and duration of antibiotic administration are reported for 10 common cosmetic surgical procedures. The results of the survey confirmed that there is widespread use of antibiotics in aesthetic surgery. To provide guidelines for proper antibiotic use, the current literature was extensively reviewed. The authors found little or no correlation between reported clinical practice and the literature. It is hoped that this study will stimulate further investigation into this area of aesthetic surgery.

Hormonal breast augmentation: prognostic relevance of insulin-like growth factor-I

Many women would like to after their breasts but are deterred by the risks involved. Silicone breast implants have been linked to a variety of illnesses, the most controversial of which are connective-tissue diseases. These circumstances urged us to perform this pilot study using a non-invasive method that involved the application of 17 beta-estradiol as it is known that estradiol enhances expression of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) which can promote growth in breast tissue. Forty-five women were included in the study. Their breast volume, IGF-I, prolactin (PRL) and estradiol levels were measured before treatment and between each application of 80 mg estradiol polyphosphate. The women's satisfaction with the results obtained was also subsequently evaluated. In 21 women (46.7%), breast size increased from 824.3 +/- 13.7 mm to 898.5 +/- 12.5 mm after 6 months. In these women a significant increase in IGF-I values was noted after 4 weeks of treatment. The increase in IGF-I values was not statistically significant in the remaining women. In addition, treatment was not successful in these women. IGF-I concentration seems to be of prognostic value as far as the response of breast tissue to estrogen stimulation is concerned. If IGF-I levels do not increase within 1 month, treatment should be discontinued. If IGF-I values do increase, this indicates that treatment is likely to be successful and can therefore be continued.

[Antibiotic prophylaxis in gynecologic surgery]

Hysterectomies are contaminated procedures; surgical wound related sepsis ranges from 10 to 25%. Several randomised controlled studies demonstrated a significant benefit with prophylactic antibiotics. The study results were more controversial for abdominal hysterectomies. Ureidopenicillins, cephamycins and other antibacterial agents active on Gram negative rods and anaerobes can be recommended as a preoperative flash at anaesthesia induction, followed by a second injection whenever the procedure duration exceeds 3 hours. In case of extended hysterectomy for cancer, broad spectrum antibiotic prophylaxis is usual; some recent studies demonstrated the efficacy of a short duration antibacterial agent use. Mastectomies are at low risk for postoperative infection. Antibacterial prophylaxis is common, especially in plastic surgery.