It Is Time to Abandon Betadine Irrigation of Breast Implant Pockets

Concentration of Povidone-Iodine Pocket Irrigation in Implant-Based Breast Surgery: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

In implant-based breast surgery, microbial contamination of implant surfaces predisposes complications such as overt periprosthetic infection and has been linked to capsular contracture (CC). Anti-microbial practices, including povidone-iodine (PVP-I) breast pocket irrigation, are routinely employed to minimise these risks. No standardised protocol for using this antiseptic exists, particularly concerning the ideal concentration. This review investigates how PVP-I concentration affects outcomes in these procedures while highlighting research gaps.

METHODS

Using PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and PubMed databases from their inception to June 2024. Studies were screened using pre-determined criteria for inclusion. The methodological quality of relevant studies was assessed using the MINORS tool. Data regarding basic characteristics, PVP-I irrigation implementation, and outcomes (primarily periprosthetic infection and CC) were extracted for analysis.

RESULTS

Nine articles, primarily observational studies, and retrospective analyses were included. These mainly focused on breast augmentation with a few including reconstruction. There was considerable heterogeneity in surgical techniques, and reported PVP-I concentrations ranged from 4 to 20%. This was further confounded by frequent mixing of irrigation solution with antibiotics. Although infection and CC rates were frequently reported, most studies did not specify outcome data for patients receiving PVP-I irrigation.

CONCLUSIONS

While PVP-I irrigation is extensively used in implant surgeries, the current evidence base is insufficient to determine the optimal concentration and application techniques. This review underscores the need for further detailed research to establish evidence-based guidelines for PVP-I use, aiming to improve patient care and surgical outcomes in breast surgery.

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 .

Outcomes After Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Following the National Institution of a Ban on Bacitracin Irrigation

BACKGROUND

The use of irrigation with bacitracin-containing solution is common among surgeons, as it was widely thought to have antibacterial properties and prevent postoperative infection. Current literature, however, suggests that antibiotic-containing irrigation confers little added benefit. On January 31, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration instituted a ban on bacitracin-containing irrigation for operative use. This study aimed to determine whether bacitracin has a beneficial effect on postoperative infection rates by analyzing infection rates before and after the Food and Drug Administration ban on bacitracin irrigation.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective chart review was conducted. Eligible patients underwent implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy from October 1, 2016, to July 31, 2022. Procedure date, reconstruction type, patient comorbidities, use of bacitracin irrigation, postoperative infection, and secondary outcomes were collected. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 188 female patients were included in the study. Bacitracin use did not protect against infection in univariate or multivariable analysis. Age greater than 50 years was associated with an increased risk of postoperative infection ( P = 0.0366). The presence of comorbidities, smoker status, neoadjuvant therapy treatment before surgery, implant placement, and laterality were all not significantly associated with postoperative infection development.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate a lack of association between bacitracin use and postoperative infection. Additional research into the optimal antibiotic for perioperative irrigation is needed, as bacitracin is not encouraged for use.

Peer Review: How to Review a Plastic Surgery Manuscript

ABSTRACT

Little information is available regarding how to review a plastic surgery manuscript. This vital responsibility ensures that publications meet an acceptable scientific standard. Thoughtful and thorough reviews are essential to protect patients and surgeons from unscientific practices and products. This discussion provides information for the reviewer, gained from the author's experience, including examples of a thorough review, likely to be useful to the editor, and a cursory one that is unhelpful.The first consideration is relevance. Prerequisites for publication include institutional review board approval, disclosure of financial conflicts, and discussion of the regulatory status of devices. Particular attention is needed to check for conflicts of interest, which are endemic in plastic surgery today. In view of the common practice of using computer-generated imaging, reviewers need to be especially vigilant for inauthentic "photoshopped" photographs. Examples of published images that have been digitally altered are provided.If data are available, it may be possible to check the statistical tests. Reviewers need to be aware of the practice of p-hacking. A quick literature search can identify relevant but unreferenced publications. The manuscript needs to be properly organized into sections. Minor points may be made regarding style. The study design and methodology need to be evaluated to be sure that the conclusions are well supported by data. Randomized studies are rarely feasible. Fortunately, well-done prospective observational studies in consecutive patients can be just as useful. Realistic complication rates are expected. Meta-analyses in plastic surgery are often subject to confounding variables. Comments should be available to the authors; confidential comments hidden from authors are discouraged. Like honesty, transparency is the best policy. Manuscripts should be evaluated solely for merit, not the identity of the author or institution. Timeliness of submission of the review is appreciated by authors.Evidence-based medicine is concerned solely with the facts. The 2 basic criteria are a solid scientific basis and reliable evidence of efficacy. Reviewers need to keep an open mind. Studies that challenge the status quo are often the most valuable ones and are needed for the advancement of the specialty.