Implant salvage in breast reconstruction with severe peri-prosthetic infection

Outcomes of Third-Attempt Breast Reconstruction following Infection-Associated Failure of Secondary Implant-Based Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most common method of breast reconstruction in the United States. Despite ongoing advancements, periprosthetic infection is a serious problem that often results in device explantation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of third-attempt reconstruction in patients in whom secondary implant-based reconstruction failed because of infection.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomy followed by IBR from 2000 to 2019. The outcomes of patients in whom secondary IBR failed because of infection and who ultimately underwent third-attempt breast reconstruction were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 6093 patients who underwent primary IBR, 13 patients had third-attempt breast reconstruction following infection-related explantation [median age, 52 years (interquartile range, 51 to 56 years); median body mass index, 23 kg/m 2 (interquartile range, 22 to 31 kg/m 2 ); median follow-up, 46 months (interquartile range, 16 to 62 months)]. Nine patients (70%) underwent IBR, two (15%) underwent IBR combined with pedicled latissimus dorsi flap, and two (15%) underwent abdominally based free tissue transfer. Third-attempt breast reconstruction was immediate in 46% of patients and delayed in 54%. The success rate was 78% in the IBR group, with a 23% complication rate. The success rate for autologous breast reconstruction was 100%, with one patient developing venous congestion necessitating return to the operating room.

CONCLUSIONS

Third-attempt breast reconstruction following infection-associated failed secondary IBR is a safe and feasible option. Although the risk of failure is higher than that for primary implant-based reconstruction, a third attempt after secondary IBR infection had a surprisingly high 78% success rate.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Is Instillational Topical Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Peri-Prosthetic Infections of the Breast Effective? A Pilot Study

Peri-prosthetic breast infections pose a risk of severe complications after breast implant surgery. The need to remove the breast implant, control the infection and perform additional surgical procedures are the consequences. Reimplantation of an alloplastic implant is only appropriate after an infection-free interval. In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the effectiveness of negative pressure wound treatment with instillation and dwell time (NPWTi-d) on peri-prosthetic breast infections in combination with implant removal and antibiotic therapy. Twelve patients treated with NPWTi-d due to breast implant infection were included in the study. The bacterial burden was analyzed using wound swabs before and after NPWTi-d. Additionally, laboratory values were determined before NPWTi-d and immediately before wound closure. A total of 13 peri-prosthetic breast infections in 12 patients were treated using implant removal and NPWTi-d. In 76.9% (n = 10) of the cases, the patients had undergone alloplastic breast reconstruction following cancer-related mastectomy, whereas 23.1% (n = 3) of the patients had undergone breast augmentation for cosmetic reasons. The bacterial burden in the breast pocket decreased statistically significant after implant removal and NPWTi-d. No shift from Gram-positive to Gram-negative bacteria was observed. Inflammatory markers rapidly decreased following treatment. NPWTi-d had a positive impact on the healing process after peri-prosthetic breast infections, leading to a decrease in bacterial burden within the wounds and contributing to uneventful healing. Therefore, secondary reimplantation of breast prostheses might be positively influenced when compared to conventional implant removal and simple secondary closure. Further studies are required to conclusively establish the beneficial long-term effects of using NPWTi-d for the treatment of peri-prosthetic breast infections.

Rinse But Don't Repeat: Single Application V.A.C. VERAFLO Salvages Infected Breast Prostheses

Introduction

Existing salvage protocols for infected breast prostheses using negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell (NPWTi-d) require multiple returns to the operating room and prolonged length of stay. We present our expedited salvage protocol and discuss outcomes and associated costs savings.

Methods

Using a retrospective review, we identified 25 consecutive patients (27 breasts) with peri-prosthetic breast infection. Nine patients (10 breasts) underwent removal of infected breast prostheses followed by autologous or staged implant-based reconstruction. Sixteen patients (17 breasts) underwent our single application salvage protocol. A cost analysis was performed comparing the two groups, and an economic model was used to project the cost savings associated with using single application NPWTi-d protocol.

Results

Fifteen of the 16 patients (94%) who underwent single application NPWTi-d had successful implant salvage. Average duration of NPWTi-d was 2 days, 7 hours, and average length of stay was 4.43 days. Compared to control, patients who received the single application protocol required significantly fewer hospitalizations and office visits. A total savings of $58,275 could have been achieved by using the single application NPWTi-d protocol in the patients who did not undergo NPWTi-d.

Conclusions

Single application of NPWTi-d is a simple, safe, and cost-effective technique for salvage of breast prostheses, with 94% success rate, even in immunocompromised patients and severe infection. Compared to previous protocols, ours requires fewer trips to the operating room, shorter length of stay, and more permanent implants placed during salvage. Our protocol is also associated with fewer office visits and fewer returns to the operating room.

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy in the Prevention and Management of Complications From Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complications from prosthetic breast reconstruction are distressing for patients, and their management is challenging. For decades, negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been successfully used for the closure of complex wounds. This study analyzes the outcomes of NPWT use in the prevention and management of complications from prosthetic breast reconstruction.

METHOD

A systematic search of studies published until August 2020 was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ebscohost/CINAHL databases and using the following key words: "negative-pressure wound therapy," "breast reconstruction," and "prosthesis" (including breast implants and tissue expanders). Analyzed endpoints were outcomes of NPWT use in prosthetic breast reconstruction compared with conventional dressings. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently. Comparative studies were further meta-analyzed to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) describing the effectiveness of NPWT in prosthetic breast reconstruction.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

Ten studies were included with a total of 787 patients (1230 breasts) undergoing prosthetic breast reconstruction with breast implants or tissue expanders. Three case-control studies focused on preventing breast wound complications. The meta-analysis of the 3 studies included 502 breasts receiving NPWT and 698 breasts receiving conventional wound care. The meta-analysis favored NPWT for less mastectomy flap necrosis (5.6% vs 14.3%; OR, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 -0.77; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%) and less overall wound complications (10.6% vs 21.1%; OR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.70; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). In the management of nipple-areolar complex venous congestion, 1 case report demonstrated 85% rescue of nipple-areolar complex after using NPWT (-75 mm Hg) for a total of 12 days. In the management of periprosthetic infections, 2 case series used NPWT with instillation. It accelerated the treatment of infection and maintained the breast cavity for future reconstruction. Conventional NPWT also showed good salvage outcome in four studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that prophylactic use of NPWT in prosthetic breast reconstruction reduces the rate of overall wound complications and mastectomy flap necrosis. In the management of complications from prosthetic breast reconstructions, NPWT may be a promising option showing beneficial results. Additional high-quality trials are warranted to corroborate the findings of this systematic review.

Patient-reported outcome and cost implication of acute salvage of infected implant-based breast reconstruction with negative pressure wound therapy with Instillation (NPWTi) compared to standard care

INTRODUCTION

Implant loss due to infection is the most devastating complication of implant-based breast reconstruction. The use of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation(NPWTi) for salvage of infected implant-based breast reconstructions has shown promising results allowing early reinsertion of a new implant as an alternative to the current management with delayed reinsertion. This study compares the patient-reported outcome and cost implication of NPWTi to the current management.

METHODS

Twenty cases of infected breast implants treated with NPWTi(V.A.C. VERAFLO™ Therapy), followed by early reinsertion of new implants were compared to 20 cases that had delayed reinsertion(non-NPWTi). Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire. The average cost per patient was calculated using total operative expense, cost of inpatient stay, investigations, antibiotics, and outpatient visits.

RESULTS

Treatment with NPWTi allowed earlier reinsertion of a new implant (NPWTi: 10.3 ± 2.77days vs. non-NPWTi: 247.45±111.28days, p<0.001). Patients in the NPWTi group reported higher satisfaction. The average cost per patient for NPWTi and non-NPWTi was £14,343.13±£2,786.70 and £8,920.31±£3,005.73, respectively(p<0.001). All patients treated with NPWTi had one admission and spent 11.9 ± 4.1days as inpatients, while non-NPWTi patients had 2.1 ± 0.3 admissions(p<0.001) and spent 7.1 ± 5.8days(p<0.004) as inpatients. Patients treated with NPWTi had more procedures (NPWTi:3.35±0.81 Vs. non-NPWTi:2.2 ± 0.41, p = 0.006); however, three non-NPWTi cases required flap reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with NPWTi reported higher satisfaction, received a new and earlier implant, and had fewer admissions and outpatient visits; however, they incurred higher average costs, longer inpatient stays, and underwent more procedures. Early implant reinsertion preserves skin envelope; hence avoiding additional cost and stress related to further major autologous reconstruction.

Microbiology of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Infections: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Postsurgical complications have been an increasing concern for hospitals, particularly in light of payment reform. The costs to the health care system are increasing in light of Medicare penalties for readmissions for certain conditions. Surgical site infection following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) remains challenging. The rates of positive cultures and isolated microorganisms in IBR are unknown. This systematic review summarizes the reported microorganisms and positive culture rates in the existing literature.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the guidelines outlined in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Articles were included if breast implant infection rates and culture results were reported. Further subgroup analysis of culture positive infections was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were included, encompassing 25,177 IBR. Implant infections were reported in 1356 reconstructions (5.4%). Cultures were positive in 74.5% of infections. Gram-positive bacteria were the most common (68.6%), of which Staphylococcus species (51%) was the most isolated pathogen, followed by Pseudomonas. A subgroup analysis showed that early infections (63% vs 88%), radiotherapy (82% vs 93%), and acellular dermal matrix use (90% vs 100%) were associated with lower positive culture rates than their respective counterparts. Patients who received chemotherapy had higher positive culture results (94% vs 83%). Isolated microorganisms also varied among the subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review outlines reported microorganisms in IBR. Staphylococcus species and Pseudomonas were the most frequently reported microorganism. Negative cultures were reported in up to 25.5% of infections. Patients with early infections, radiotherapy, and acellular dermal matrix demonstrated higher negative culture rates. This review can help guide the use of empirical antimicrobial therapy in IBR.

Successful salvage of an infected breast prothesis by changing from continuous to intermittent suction under continuous irrigation

•

Continuous irrigation does not always salvage infected breast implants.

•

It is unclear whether continuous or intermittent suction is more effective.

•

We salvaged a breast implant by changing from continuous to intermittent suction.

•

Intermittent suction worked well in this patient and it is worthy of further studies.

Introduction

Implant-based breast reconstruction is a widely performed procedure. However, prostheses are susceptible to infection and there are currently no established guidelines on treatment. In the present case, a prosthesis was salvaged by changing from continuous irrigation and suction to continuous irrigation and intermittent suction. This case report has been reported in line with the SCARE criteria [1].

Presentation of case

A 50-year-old female patient underwent implant-based breast reconstruction following surgery for breast cancer. One month later, the left breast prosthesis was infected with abscesses. Surgical treatment and continuous irrigation were performed as postoperative therapy. However, recurrent infection was detected a few days after surgery. Continuous irrigation was changed to continuous irrigation with intermittent aspiration, which successfully controlled the infection.

Discussion

Factors that limit the effectiveness of continuous irrigation and aspiration have not yet been identified. Inflow/discharge shunt routes may be established in continuous aspiration, and, thus, sufficient cleaning may not be possible. On the other hand, the storage of water throughout the wound in intermittent aspiration may facilitate cleaning.

Conclusion

Intermittent suction worked well in this patient and, thus, warrants further study.

Salvaging the Unsalvageable: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Severe Infection of Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Severe infections of implant-based breast reconstruction are challenging to treat. Traditional management is removal of the implant with a further attempt at reconstruction months later once the infection has settled. This study evaluates an alternative management protocol using negative pressure wound therapy with instillation (NPWTi).

Methods:

Consecutive patients with severe peri-prosthetic infection following breast reconstruction were managed using the Implant Salvage Protocol: removal of the prosthesis with application of a NPWTi dressing, changed every 3 days until a negative culture was obtained. A new prosthesis was then placed in the pocket. Data were collected on patient demographics, microbiological, hospital/operative information, and overall success of salvage. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.

Results:

In total, 30 breast prostheses in 28 patients were treated for severe peri-prosthetic infection. Twenty-five (83%) implants were salvaged. Mean time from initial reconstruction surgery to presentation was 49.5 days (median 23, range 7–420). Mean hospital stay was 11.5 days (median 12.0, range 6–22), mean number of returns to the operating theater was 3.7 (median 3.0, range 2–7), and mean number of days to negative culture was 5.2 (median 4.0, range 1–14). The most common organisms were methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (n = 9) and Serratia marcescens (n = 4). Most had a tissue expander (n = 24, 80%) or implant (n = 5, 16.7%) placed at the completion of therapy. There was no record of capsular contracture nor recurrent infection during follow-up (mean 39.4 months, range 6–74 months).

Conclusion:

An estimated 83% of prosthetic breast reconstructions with severe infection were successfully salvaged using NPWTi.

Immediate prepectoral implant reconstruction using TiLOOP Bra Pocket results in improved patient satisfaction over dual plane reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction accounts for the majority of breast reconstructive procedures performed in Australia. More recently, immediate prepectoral implant reconstruction using the TiLOOP Bra Pocket has gained popularity. This study compares post-surgical complications and patient-reported quality of life outcomes between immediate prepectoral and dual plane implant reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 80 consecutive patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomies and immediate implant reconstruction was conducted. Implants were either completely covered with TiLOOP Bra and/or TiLOOP Bra Pocket (pfm medical, Cologne, Germany) and secured in the prepectoral space (prepectoral group) or placed in the subpectoral plane with inferolateral mesh coverage (dual plane group). Data surrounding patient demographics, clinical details and post-surgical outcomes were compared. Patient-related quality of life outcomes were assessed with the Breast-Q questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients (109 breasts) operated on between June 2016 and December 2018 were included. The prepectoral and dual plane groups comprised of 40 patients each, including 50 and 59 operated breasts, respectively. Post-operative complications were comparable with 11 (22%) overall complications in the prepectoral group and eight (14%) in the dual plane group (P = 0.313). Implant loss was uncommon with four (8%) cases in the prepectoral group and five (8.5%) in the dual plane group (P = 0.929). Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were superior after prepectoral reconstruction with patients reporting a significantly higher score in the satisfaction with breasts domain (68.9 versus 57.5; P = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Immediate prepectoral implant reconstruction with the TiLOOP Bra Pocket was associated with improved patient satisfaction and demonstrated no difference in early post-operative outcomes.

The American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program Incompletely Captures Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Complications

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) accounts for 70% of postmastectomy reconstructions in the United States. Improving the quality of surgical care in IBR patients through accurate measurements of outcomes is necessary. The purpose of this study is to compare the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data from our institution to our complete institutional health records database.

METHODS

Data were collected and recorded for all patients undergoing IBR at our institution from 2015 to 2017. The data were completely identified and compared with our institutional NSQIP database for demographics and complications.

RESULTS

The electronic health records data search identified 768 IBR patients in 3 years and NSQIP reported on 229 (30%) patients. Demographics were reported similarly among the 2 databases. Rates of tissue expander/implant infections (5.9% vs 1.8%; P = 0.003) and wound dehiscence (3.5% vs 0.4%; P = 0.003) were not reported similarly between our database and NSQIP. However, the rates of hematoma (2.7% vs 1.8%) and skin flap necrosis (2.5% vs 1.8%) were comparable between the two databases. In our database, 43% of all complications presented after 30 days of surgery, beyond NSQIP's capture period.

CONCLUSIONS

Databases built on partial sampling, such as the NSQIP, may be useful for demographic analyses, but fall short of providing data for complications after IBR, such as infections and wound dehiscence. These results highlight the utility and importance of complete databases. National comparisons of clinical outcomes for IBR should be interpreted with caution when using partial databases.

Use of Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy With Instillation and Dwell in Breast Reconstruction

SUMMARY

The use of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has expanded over the last 3 decades, paralleled and documented by an increase in research. This article discusses the evolution and current applications of NPWT in modern breast reconstruction. Negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell (NPWTi-d) technology can be used to remove infectious material, facilitate salvaging compromised tissue, and stabilize the soft-tissue environment. Published consensus NPWTi-d guidelines can aid in treatment selection and implementation of this new technology. The therapeutic approach of simultaneously removing infectious material and actively improving mastectomy flap perfusion and thickness is a burgeoning concept, and illustrative cases are presented. NPWTi-d preliminary use has led to reconstruction salvage with reproducible early experience and outcomes, and it is hoped that it will raise interest and awareness of this promising application of the technology to improve breast reconstruction outcomes.

Management of Expander- and Implant-Associated Infections in Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic infection remains the most common complication after implant-based breast reconstruction. Objectives of the study were to (1) describe our clinical approach and treatment protocol for managing patients with suspected periprosthetic infection, (2) identify the microorganisms causing periprosthetic infections at our institute, and (3) report on outcomes of implant salvage versus explantation.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients who were treated with parenteral antibiotics for periprosthetic infection was carried out. Patient characteristics, clinical and laboratory findings, outcomes, treatment modalities and complications were extracted from electronic medical records. Data were compared between patients whose implants were salvaged versus explanted.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients with 67 tissue expander (TE)/implants underwent parenteral antibiotic treatment for suspected infection. Thirty-three (49%) of the TE/implants were salvaged. Mean follow-up was 14.3 months. The most commonly cultured organisms were P. aeruginosa followed by S. epidermidis. All suspected infections were treated with broad spectrum parenteral antibiotics with MRSA coverage. The most common combination was daptomycin 6 mg/kg combined with Zosyn 4.5 g. Explantations were significantly more common in patients with history of chemotherapy (p = 0.03), hypertension (p = 0.04) and those who underwent therapeutic mastectomy (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Risk factors for explantation due to postoperative periprosthetic infections following TE/implant-based breast reconstruction include chemotherapy, hypertension and therapeutic mastectomy. Prompt diagnosis and effective treatment of periprosthetic infection, particularly in these high-risk patients, are imperative to salvage the breast reconstruction. Gram-negative bacteria are increasingly found in breast implant infections and should be covered when employing empiric antibiotherapy.

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 .

Veritas in Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Is Associated with Higher Complications Compared with TiLOOP

Biologic and synthetic meshes are used in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for coverage of the lower pole of the implant. This study aimed to compare outcomes of Veritas with TiLOOP bra (TiLOOP group [TG]).

EWMA Document: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

1. Introduction Since its introduction in clinical practice in the early 1990's negative pressure wounds therapy (NPWT) has become widely used in the management of complex wounds in both inpatient and outpatient care.¹ NPWT has been described as a effective treatment for wounds of many different aetiologies^2,3 and suggested as a gold standard for treatment of wounds such as open abdominal wounds,^4-6 dehisced sternal wounds following cardiac surgery^7,8 and as a valuable agent in complex non-healing wounds.^9,10 Increasingly, NPWT is being applied in the primary and home-care setting, where it is described as having the potential to improve the efficacy of wound management and help reduce the reliance on hospital-based care.¹¹ While the potential of NPWT is promising and the clinical use of the treatment is widespread, highlevel evidence of its effectiveness and economic benefits remain sparse.^12-14 The ongoing controversy regarding high-level evidence in wound care in general is well known. There is a consensus that clinical practice should be evidence-based, which can be difficult to achieve due to confusion about the value of the various approaches to wound management; however, we have to rely on the best available evidence. The need to review wound strategies and treatments in order to reduce the burden of care in an efficient way is urgent. If patients at risk of delayed wound healing are identified earlier and aggressive interventions are taken before the wound deteriorates and complications occur, both patient morbidity and health-care costs can be significantly reduced. There is further a fundamental confusion over the best way to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in this complex patient population. This is illustrated by reviews of the value of various treatment strategies for non-healing wounds, which have highlighted methodological inconsistencies in primary research. This situation is confounded by differences in the advice given by regulatory and reimbursement bodies in various countries regarding both study design and the ways in which results are interpreted. In response to this confusion, the European Wound Management Association (EWMA) has been publishing a number of interdisciplinary documents^15-19 with the intention of highlighting: The nature and extent of the problem for wound management: from the clinical perspective as well as that of care givers and the patients Evidence-based practice as an integration of clinical expertise with the best available clinical evidence from systematic research The nature and extent of the problem for wound management: from the policy maker and healthcare system perspectives The controversy regarding the value of various approaches to wound management and care is illustrated by the case of NPWT, synonymous with topical negative pressure or vacuum therapy and cited as branded VAC (vacuum-assisted closure) therapy. This is a mode of therapy used to encourage wound healing. It is used as a primary treatment of chronic wounds, in complex acute wounds and as an adjunct for temporary closure and wound bed preparation preceding surgical procedures such as skin grafts and flap surgery. Aim An increasing number of papers on the effect of NPWT are being published. However, due to the low evidence level the treatment remains controversial from the policy maker and health-care system's points of view-particularly with regard to evidence-based medicine. In response EWMA has established an interdisciplinary working group to describe the present knowledge with regard to NPWT and provide overview of its implications for organisation of care, documentation, communication, patient safety, and health economic aspects. These goals will be achieved by the following: Present the rational and scientific support for each delivered statement Uncover controversies and issues related to the use of NPWT in wound management Implications of implementing NPWT as a treatment strategy in the health-care system Provide information and offer perspectives of NPWT from the viewpoints of health-care staff, policy makers, politicians, industry, patients and hospital administrators who are indirectly or directly involved in wound management.

Negative pressure wound treatment with computer-controlled irrigation/instillation decreases bacterial load in contaminated wounds and facilitates wound closure

Microbial wound contamination is known to be a hindrance to wound healing. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with or without irrigation is known to optimise conditions in problem wounds. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of computer-controlled wound irrigation with NPWT on the bacterial load in contaminated wounds. A total of 267 patients were treated with NPWT with automated instillation because of problematic wounds using an antiseptic instillation solution. In 111 patients, a minimum of 4 operative procedures were necessary, and swabs were taken at least at the first and at the fourth operation in a standardised procedure. The number of different bacteria and the amount of bacteria were analysed during the course. In a subgroup of 51 patients, swabs were taken at all 4 operative procedures and analysed separately. In an overall analysis, the number of different bacteria and the amount of bacteria significantly decreased independent of wound localisation and diagnosis. NPWT with automated instillation demonstrates a positive influence in the reduction of bacterial load in problem wounds. Thus, it may help to optimise wound conditions before definite wound closure.

Analysis of clinical management of infected breast implants and of factors associated to successful breast pocket salvage in infections occurring after breast reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

Considerable efforts have been devoted so far to improve salvage procedures of infected breast implants in absence of defined guidelines or validated clinical protocols. Within a cohort of prospectively recruited patients who underwent breast reconstruction, we performed a retrospective review of proven implant infections in order to describe factors contributing to management success.

METHODS

We collected data in 1293 consecutive patients who underwent two stage (expander+prosthesis) breast reconstruction with at least 12 months of follow-up. Demographic data, timing of infection, type of microorganism, intent of salvage, fate of the implant, type of antibiotic treatment and follow-up were recorded in a prospective data collection on clinical records.

RESULTS

Implant infections occurred in 103 of 1293 patients (8%). Among these, 73 (71%) were proven infections with confirmed microbiology. Implant pocket salvage was attempted in 43/73 (59%). patients A higher proportion of expander implant pockets were successfully saved compared to prosthetic pocket (p=0,04). Gram-positive microrganisms represented the majority of etiologic agents, with coagulase negative staphylococci prevailing over Staphylococcus aureus. No association was observed between success rate and type of infecting microorganism. A higher proportion of patients with previous or intraoperative radiotherapy or with perioperative chemotherapy underwent an attempt of implant salvage (p=0,081 and 0,0571 trend, respectively). No single antibiotic regimen was superior to the others in terms of success rate. Implant pocket salvage was higher in expanders compared to prostheses (74% vs 33% p=0,04). Higher success rates in implant pocket salvage were evident when implant replacement was preceded and followed by antibiotic treatment compared to inpatient antibiotic treatment alone (100% versus 57%, p=0,035).

CONCLUSION

Patient selection in clinical practice leads to differences in patients with breast implant infection who are considered for attempts at implant salvage vs. those who are treated with implant removal. Salvage of breast implant pockets can be obtained in the majority of patients with combined one-step implant replacement surgery and antibiotic treatment. Increased efforts and protocols to recruit patients into pocket salvage management are needed.

Expander/Implant Removal After Breast Reconstruction: Analysis of Risk Factors and Timeline

INTRODUCTION

Removal of tissue expanders (TE) or implants is a dire consequence of breast reconstruction, and has the potential to halt the reconstructive efforts. Our goals were to characterize a cohort of patients with TE/implant removal, to perform a time-based analysis, and to review the bacteriology associated with explanted devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review of a prospectively maintained database was performed to identify patients who underwent TE/implant removal. Patient characteristics, surgical technique, adjuvant therapies, indications, complications, culture results were obtained. Data were analyzed according to timing of explantation.

RESULTS

A total of 55 TE and implants were removed in 43 patients. Reasons for explantation were infection (58%), patient request (22%), and wound-related complications (20%). The majority of explantations occurred after 30 days (62%), and after Stage I (81%). Median days to explantation was 62. Patients of older age (p = 0.01) and higher BMI (p = 0.02) were more likely to undergo explantation after Stage I. The most commonly cultured organisms were S. epidermidis (10.9%), S. aureus (10.9%) and P. aeruginosa (10.9%). Antibiotic resistance was commonly encountered for ampicillin, cefazolin, penicillin, and erythromycin.

CONCLUSION

Infection is the most common reason for explantation after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Patients should be carefully monitored for a prolonged period of time after Stage I, as the majority of explantations occur in this stage but beyond 30 days. For oral treatment, fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and for IV treatment a combination of vancomycin or daptomycin with piperacillin-tazobactam or imipenems/carbapenems appear to be appropriate choices according to our culture results.

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 .