Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2024; 51(01): 036-041
DOI: 10.1055/a-2161-7521
Breast/Trunk
Original Article

Effect of Perioperative Prophylactic Intravenous Antibiotic Use in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study

Seok Kyung In 
1   Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam-si, Republic of Korea
,
Seok Won Park 
1   Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam-si, Republic of Korea
,
Yujin Myung 
1   Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam-si, Republic of Korea
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Among breast reconstruction methods, implant-based breast reconstruction has become the mainstream. However, periprosthetic infection is still an unresolved problem. Although published articles have revealed that limited use of antibiotics is sufficient to reduce infection rates, the number of surgeons still preferring elongated usage of antibiotics is not less. The aim of our study is to validate the appropriate duration of antibiotic use to reduce infection rate after implant-based breast reconstruction.

Methods A retrospective study reviewed medical record of 235 patients (274 implants for reconstruction) who underwent prepectoral direct to implant breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix wrapping technique. Infection rates were analyzed for the patients administered postoperative prophylactic antibiotics until drain removal and those who received only perioperative prophylactic antibiotics for 24 hours.

Results Of the 274 implants, 98 who were administered prophylactic antibiotics until drain removal had an infection rate of 3.06% (three implants) and 176 who received prophylactic antibiotics no longer than 24 hours postoperatively had an infection rate of 4.49% (eight implants). A total of 11 patients diagnosed with postoperative infection clinically, 8 were salvaged by antibiotic treatment, and 3 had implant removal and replacement with autologous flap. Postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis duration had no statistically significant effects in the risk of infection (p = 0.549).

Conclusion The duration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery was not related to infection risk. Further study with a large number of patients, randomized control study, and route of antibiotics is needed.

Keywords

breast implants - infections - antibacterial agents

Authors' Contributions

S.K.I. was responsible for writing, S.W.P. was responsible for data collection, and Y.M. was responsible for editing.


Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our hospital (IRB No. B-2301-805-101).


Patient Consent

Patient consent was not needed for this manuscript.


Note

This article was presented as an oral presentation at the PRS KOREA 2022 on November 13, 2022.




Publication History

Received: 09 January 2023

Accepted: 26 August 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
29 August 2023

Article published online:
07 February 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Frey JD, Salibian AA, Karp NS, Choi M. Implant-based breast reconstruction: hot topics, controversies, and new directions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (02) 404e-416e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 American Society of Plastics Surgeons. 2014 plastic surgery statistics report. Accessed September 1, 2022 at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2014/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2014.pdf
  • 3 Kim JW, Lee JH, Kim TG, Kim YH, Chung KJ. Breast reconstruction statistics in Korea from the big data hub of the health insurance review and assessment service. Arch Plast Surg 2018; 45 (05) 441-448
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (03) 432-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schmitz M, Bertram M, Kneser U, Keller AK, Horch RE. Experimental total wrapping of breast implants with acellular dermal matrix: a preventive tool against capsular contracture in breast surgery?. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66 (10) 1382-1389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Song JH, Kim YS, Jung BK. et al. Salvage of infected breast implants. Arch Plast Surg 2017; 44 (06) 516-522
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Spear SL, Howard MA, Boehmler JH, Ducic I, Low M, Abbruzzesse MR. The infected or exposed breast implant: management and treatment strategies. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (06) 1634-1644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Azouz V, Mirhaidari S, Wagner DS. Defining infection in breast reconstruction: a literature review. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (05) 587-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mladick RA. Significance of Staphylococcus epidermidis causing subclinical infection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115 (05) 1426-1427 , author reply 1427–1428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Phillips BT, Bishawi M, Dagum AB, Khan SU, Bui DT. A systematic review of antibiotic use and infection in breast reconstruction: what is the evidence?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (01) 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Maisel Lotan A, Ben Yehuda D, Allweis TM, Scheflan M. Comparative study of meshed and nonmeshed acellular dermal matrix in immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (05) 1045-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Xu F, Sun H, Zhang C. et al. Comparison of surgical complication between immediate implant and autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a multicenter study of 426 cases. J Surg Oncol 2018; 118 (06) 953-958
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tadiparthi S, Staley H, Collis N, O'Donoghue JM. An analysis of the motivating and risk factors for conversion from implant-based to total autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (01) 23-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Adams Jr WP, Rios JL, Smith SJ. Enhancing patient outcomes in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery using triple antibiotic breast irrigation: six-year prospective clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (01) 30-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ooi ASh, Song DH. Reducing infection risk in implant-based breast-reconstruction surgery: challenges and solutions. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 2016; 8: 161-172
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Eun YN, Hong BK, Hyunok B. et al. Appropriateness of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in a tertiary hospital. Korean J Nosocomial Infect Control 2014; 19: 64-70
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ranganathan K, Sears ED, Zhong L. et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis after immediate breast reconstruction: the reality of its efficacy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (04) 865-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Clayton JL, Bazakas A, Lee CN, Hultman CS, Halvorson EG. Once is not enough: withholding postoperative prophylactic antibiotics in prosthetic breast reconstruction is associated with an increased risk of infection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (03) 495-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Phillips BT, Wang ED, Mirrer J. et al. Current practice among plastic surgeons of antibiotic prophylaxis and closed-suction drains in breast reconstruction: experience, evidence, and implications for postoperative care. Ann Plast Surg 2011; 66 (05) 460-465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): National Healthcare Safety Network. Surgical site infection event (SSI) [Internet]. 2022 . Accessed December 19, 2022 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/9pscssicurrent.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bartsich S, Ascherman JA, Whittier S, Yao CA, Rohde C. The breast: a clean-contaminated surgical site. Aesthet Surg J 2011; 31 (07) 802-806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Johnson AC, Colakoglu S, Siddikoglu D. et al. Impact of dermal matrix brand in implant-based breast reconstruction outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 150 (01) 17-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wu PS, Winocour S, Jacobson SR. Red breast syndrome: a review of available literature. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015; 39 (02) 227-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cohen JB, Carroll C, Tenenbaum MM, Myckatyn TM. Breast implant-associated infections: the role of the national surgical quality improvement program and the local microbiome. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (05) 921-929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Banuelos J, Abu-Ghname A, Asaad M, Vyas K, Sohail MR, Sharaf B. Microbiology of implant-based breast reconstruction infections: a systematic review. Ann Plast Surg 2020; 85 (02) 194-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG. et al. Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions: determining the incidence and significant predictors of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (06) 1606-1614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dicuonzo S, Leonardi MC, Radice D. et al. Long-term results and reconstruction failure in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy with a temporary expander or permanent implant in place. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (02) 317-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar