Dataset Information

Significance of Infections in Implant Loss After Breast Reconstruction in the Course of Breast Cancer Treatment.

ABSTRACT: The aim of the study was to analyze the reasons for removing implants after breast reconstruction in the course of treatment of breast cancer. The study involved 428 patients, who underwent a total of 648 breast reconstruction procedures using artificial implants. 47 out of 648 cases (7.3%) were identified in which the implant had to be removed. Of the 47 cases, 57.4% had undergone deferred reconstruction, and 42.6% immediate reconstruction; 27.7% had undergone pre-operative chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 27.7% pre-operative chemotherapy, and 2.1% pre-operative radiotherapy; 6.4% were diabetic, 4.3% active smokers, and more than 50.0% had BMI greater than 25 kg/m2. In 83.0% of the analyzed cases, the reason for removal of the implant was infection, in 8.5% it was local recurrence of breast cancer, in 4.3% it was damage (leakage) of the implant, and in 2.1% it was post-operative pain. About 87.0% of infections appeared within one year of implantation; however, less than a half developed within 90 days of the reconstructive surgery, and up to 30 days only about 13.0% had appeared. Among the etiological agents of infections were: coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (31.3%), Staphylococcus aureus (18.7%), Enterococcus faecalis (9.4%), Enterobacter cloacae (18.8%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12.5%), Acinetobacter lwoffii (3.1%), and other Gram-negative fermenting rods accounted for 6.2%. Infections were the most common reason for removing the implant after breast reconstruction. and occurred most often as late infections (>30 days after surgery). The time of observation for infectious complications should be at least 1 year.The aim of the study was to analyze the reasons for removing implants after breast reconstruction in the course of treatment of breast cancer. The study involved 428 patients, who underwent a total of 648 breast reconstruction procedures using artificial implants. 47 out of 648 cases (7.3%) were identified in which the implant had to be removed. Of the 47 cases, 57.4% had undergone deferred reconstruction, and 42.6% immediate reconstruction; 27.7% had undergone pre-operative chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 27.7% pre-operative chemotherapy, and 2.1% pre-operative radiotherapy; 6.4% were diabetic, 4.3% active smokers, and more than 50.0% had BMI greater than 25 kg/m2. In 83.0% of the analyzed cases, the reason for removal of the implant was infection, in 8.5% it was local recurrence of breast cancer, in 4.3% it was damage (leakage) of the implant, and in 2.1% it was post-operative pain. About 87.0% of infections appeared within one year of implantation; however, less than a half developed within 90 days of the reconstructive surgery, and up to 30 days only about 13.0% had appeared. Among the etiological agents of infections were: coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (31.3%), Staphylococcus aureus (18.7%), Enterococcus faecalis (9.4%), Enterobacter cloacae (18.8%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12.5%), Acinetobacter lwoffii (3.1%), and other Gram-negative fermenting rods accounted for 6.2%. Infections were the most common reason for removing the implant after breast reconstruction. and occurred most often as late infections (>30 days after surgery). The time of observation for infectious complications should be at least 1 year.

SUBMITTER: Szymankiewicz M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7256728 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Significance of Infections in Implant Loss After Breast Reconstruction in the Course of Breast Cancer Treatment.

Szymankiewicz Maria M Nowikiewicz Tomasz T Biedka Marta M

Polish journal of microbiology 20190903 3

The aim of the study was to analyze the reasons for removing implants after breast reconstruction in the course of treatment of breast cancer. The study involved 428 patients, who underwent a total of 648 breast reconstruction procedures using artificial implants. 47 out of 648 cases (7.3%) were identified in which the implant had to be removed. Of the 47 cases, 57.4% had undergone deferred reconstruction, and 42.6% immediate reconstruction; 27.7% had undergone pre-operative chemotherapy and rad ...[more]

PMID: 31880880

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe potential association between breast implant-related anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and implant texture has raised concerns about the additional unexpected adverse effects of textured implants, including potentially adverse outcomes for other cancers. In addition to the risk of developing BIA-ALCL, breast cancer survivors may worry about whether the type of implant inserted is associated with recurrence of their original cancer-an issue for which little evidence currently exists.ObjectiveTo evaluate the oncologic outcomes of breast cancer according to the surface type of implants used for reconstruction and to identify the independent factors associated with breast cancer recurrence and survival, including implant surface type.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted at Samsung Medical Center, a single tertiary referral center in Seoul, South Korea. Patients with breast cancer who underwent total mastectomy and immediate 2-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were categorized into 2 groups according to the surface type of implant used for their reconstruction (smooth or textured implant). These patients were followed up for at least 2 years after insertion of the implant. Data analysis was performed from February 15, 2020, to March 5, 2020.ExposuresUse of smooth implants vs textured implants at the second-stage operation.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes of interest were local and regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates. Cumulative incidence of oncologic events in the smooth implant and textured implant groups and their respective hazard ratios (HRs) were collected and updated regularly.ResultsIn total, 650 patients (all women, with a mean [SD] age of 43.5 [7.4] years), representing 687 cases, met the inclusion criteria and were followed up for a median (range) duration of 52 (31-106) months. Of the 687 cases, 274 (39.9%) received a smooth implant and 413 (60.1%) received a textured implant. Patients in these 2 surface texture groups had similar characteristics, including tumor staging (stage I: 102 [37.2%] vs 173 [41.9%]; stage II: 93 [33.9%] vs 119 [28.8%]; stage III: 14 [5.1%] vs 20 [4.8%]; P = .50) and rates of adjuvant radiotherapy (42 [15.3%] vs 49 [11.9%]; P = .19) and chemotherapy (113 [41.2%] vs 171 [41.4%]; P = .97). The 5-year LRRFS was 96.7%, and the 5-year DFS was 95.2%. Compared with the use of a smooth implant, textured implant use was statistically significantly associated with lower DFS, and this difference remained significant after adjusting for estrogen receptor (ER) status and tumor stage (HR, 3.054; 95% CI, 1.158-8.051; P = .02). Similar statistically significant associations were observed on multivariable analysis of patients with ER-positive cancer (HR, 3.130; 95% CI, 1.053-9.307; P = .04) and those with invasive cancer (HR, 3.044; 95% CI, 1.152-8.039; P = .03). The association of textured implant use with recurrence (lower DFS) was more prominent in cases with late-stage (stage II or III) tumor (HR, 8.874; 95% CI, 1.146-68.748; P = .04). The LRRFS did not differ statistically significantly according to implant surface texture.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that use of textured implants in reconstruction appears to be associated with recurrence of breast cancer. Further investigation is required to verify these results.

Project description:Background and objectiveComplications associated with implant-based reconstruction have a spectrum of severity with sequelae ranging from mild aesthetic deformities to additional surgery, reconstructive failure and systemic illness. The purpose of this narrative review of the literature is to provide updated evidence-based information on the management of complications in implant-based reconstruction.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, OVID MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify common complications associated with implant-based breast reconstruction, incidences of occurrence as well as preventative and management strategies.Key content and findingsPertinent short and long-term complications of implant-based breast reconstruction include hematoma, implant infection, seroma, skin envelope necrosis, capsular contracture, rupture, malposition, animation and contour deformities, implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and breast implant illness. Important preventative measures for short term complications include meticulous sterile technique and antibiotic irrigation, adequate drainage and critical evaluation of mastectomy flaps. Management of short-term complications requires early recognition and aggressive treatment to prevent reconstructive failure as well as long-term complications such as capsular contracture. Important technological advances include dual-port expanders for seroma drainage, indocyanine green angiography for mastectomy flap perfusion evaluation, cohesive form-stable implants for treatment of rippling, and various biologic and synthetic mesh products for pocket control and correction.ConclusionsImportant principles in management of short-term complications in implant-based reconstruction include aggressive and early intervention to maximize the chance of reconstructive salvage. Contemporary technological advances have played an important role in both prevention and treatment of complications. Over-arching principles in management of implant-based reconstruction complications focus on preventative techniques and preoperative patient counseling on potential risks, their likelihood, and necessary treatments to allow for informed and shared decision-making.

Dataset Information

Significance of Infections in Implant Loss After Breast Reconstruction in the Course of Breast Cancer Treatment.

Publications

Significance of Infections in Implant Loss After Breast Reconstruction in the Course of Breast Cancer Treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets