Dataset Information

Critical Evaluation of Risk Factors of Infection Following 2-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

ABSTRACT: Infection is a dreaded complication following 2-stage implant-based breast reconstruction that can prolong the reconstructive process and lead to loss of implant. This study aimed to characterize outcomes of reconstructions complicated by infection, identify patient and surgical factors associated with infection, and use these to develop an infection management algorithm.We performed a retrospective review of all consecutive implant-based breast reconstructions performed by the senior author (2006-2015) and collected data regarding patient demographics, medical history, operative variables, presence of other complications (necrosis, seroma, hematoma), and infection characteristics. Univariate and multivariate binomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of infection.We captured 292 patients who underwent 469 breast reconstructions. In total, 14.1% (n = 66) of breasts were complicated by infection, 87.9% (n = 58) of those were admitted and given intravenous antibiotics, 80.3% (n = 53) of all infections were cleared after the first attempt, whereas the remaining recurred at least once. The most common outcome was explantation (40.9%; n = 27), followed by secondary implant insertion (21.2%; n = 14) and operative salvage (18.2%; n = 12). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that body mass index (P = 0.01), preoperative radiation (P = 0.02), necrosis (P < 0.001), seroma (P < 0.001), and hematoma (P = 0.03) were independent predictors of infection.We observed an overall infectious complication rate of 14.1%. Heavier patients and patients who received preoperative radiation were more likely to develop infectious complications, suggesting that closer monitoring of high risk patients can potentially minimize infectious complications. Further, more aggressive management may be warranted for patients whose operations are complicated by necrosis, seroma, or hematoma.

SUBMITTER: Long C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5548561 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in one-stage immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (BR) may offer advantages over the two-stage expander-to-implant technique, but literature shows conflicting results. The aim of the present study was to compare these two techniques for immediate implant-based BR regarding postoperative complications, aesthetic correction procedures and aesthetic outcome.MethodsThe study was designed as an observational cohort study with 44 participants admitted for immediate implant-based BR at Department of Plastic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. 21 patients underwent BR with a one-stage direct-to-implant technique using ADM and 23 patients underwent BR with a two-stage expander-to-implant technique. Follow-up time was 2 years.ResultsThe risk of implant loss was equal between groups; one-stage group 16% and two-stage group 17% whereas the risk of implant exchange (but not loss of BR) was 13% in the one-stage group compared to 7% in the two-stage group. The risk of at least one major complication were equal between groups; 28% and 24% but the risk of at least one minor complication was significantly higher in the two-stage group (41%) compared to the one-stage group (3%). Number of aesthetic corrections were equally frequent in the two treatment groups (one-stage group 1.8, two-stage group 1.5). Patient and investigator assessed aesthetic outcome was very high in both groups as well as the degree of symmetry between breasts. No capsular contracture Baker grade 3 or 4 was observed.ConclusionsThe present study design sets limitations for drawing wide conclusions. This study did not reveal any significant differences between the two breast reconstructive techniques besides a higher risk of minor complications in the two-stage group, that did, however, not lead to a higher risk of implant loss. With equally high satisfaction with the aesthetic result and no significant difference in number of aesthetic corrections between the two groups we suggest, that the one-stage approach using ADM may be feasible and allows the patient to achieve an implant-based BR with a minimum of surgeries and outpatient visits. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04209010).

Project description:Background and objectiveWith the incorporation of autologous fat grafting, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) products, and nipple-sparing mastectomy, prepectoral device placement has become more popular in selected patients when compared to partial submuscular (dual plane) or complete submuscular device placement. In this article, we aimed to present a review of the current state-of-the-art for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) using expanders. Additionally, we present a case series of our experience with IBBR evaluating perioperative outcomes, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO).MethodsFor our series, we retrospectively evaluated adult female patients undergoing 2-stage immediate IBBR after total mastectomy between 2011 and 2021. We performed a systematic search across PubMed MEDLINE for articles evaluating outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage IBBR with expanders published from database inception through February 28th, 2023.Key content and findingsBoth prepectoral and subpectoral are safe alternatives for two-stage IBBR. Due to current advancements in the field of breast reconstruction, prepectoral IBBR has gained popularity and has a comparable rate of complications compared to a subpectoral approach in selected patients according to high-quality articles. In patients with several comorbidities, current tobacco use, history of preoperative radiation, and limited perfusion of the mastectomy flaps, subpectoral device placement should be given special consideration as a layer of vascularized tissue can decrease the risk of major complications or unplanned procedures. As prepectoral device placement does not require dissection of the pectoral muscles, faster recovery, better implant position, decreased pain, and a shorter time to complete expansion is expected. The plane of reconstruction does not seem to significantly affect the time for expander-to-implant exchange or PRO for quality-of-life (QOL) according to most studies.ConclusionsPrepectoral and subpectoral IBBR demonstrated a comparable rate of complications in selected patients. Nonetheless, perioperative outcomes seem to be improved using a prepectoral approach in terms of reduced pain, reduced time to conclude outpatient expansions, and less animation deformity.

Dataset Information

Critical Evaluation of Risk Factors of Infection Following 2-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets