Reconstructive breast implant-related infections: Prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and pearls of wisdom.

Implant-based reconstructions are increasingly utilized following mastectomy in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer. However, these implants are associated with a high rate of infection, which is a major complication that can lead to implant removal, delay in adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy, and increase in health care costs. Early clinical signs and symptoms of infection, such as erythema, warmth, and tenderness, are challenging to discern from expected postsurgical responses. Furthermore, when atypical features are present or the patient's condition does not improve on adequate antimicrobials, the clinician should be prompted to consider an alternative noninfectious etiology. Herein we highlight the key elements of the preventive, diagnostic, and multidisciplinary therapeutic approach to salvaging the infected breast implant; review several infectious disease mimickers; and provide many pearls of wisdom that the practicing clinician must be familiar with and be able to manage in an effective and successful manner.

Comparing the efficacy of antimicrobial pocket-irrigation protocols in an in vivo breast implant infection model.

BACKGROUND: Breast implant infection and biofilm formation are major concerns in reconstructive and esthetic breast surgery, with significant medical and economic consequences. Staphylococcus is the common pathogen, with rapidly increasing rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). There is no consensus on prevention practices. This study compares the effect of several pocket irrigation and antibiotic prophylaxis regimens on implant colonization and biofilm formation in an established rat model of MRSA-infected silicone breast implants. METHODS: Silicone discs were inserted in a sub-pectoral pocket in 57 rats (114 implants). Implant infection was induced by injection of free planktonic MRSA into the surgical pocket. Rats were allocated to study groups treated by different antimicrobial protocols: pocket irrigation with vancomycin, povidone-iodine, or saline. Each group was divided into subgroups treated with or without additional peri-operative systemic vancomycin. Implant colonization or overt infection was assessed at post-operative day 14 both clinically and by cultures. RESULTS: Pocket irrigation with vancomycin prevented contamination in 87% of implants. Irrigation and systemic vancomycin prevented contamination in 100% of implants with no difference between a single preoperative dose and a 48-h regimen. Systemic vancomycin alone or irrigation with povidone-iodine alone resulted in 100% contamination rates. CONCLUSIONS: In this in vivo model, combination of systemic vancomycin with vancomycin pocket irrigation was the most effective regimen, preventing contamination in 100% of implants. Continuation of post-operative antibiotic treatment showed no added advantage.

Did the National Ban on Bacitracin Irrigation Affect Infection Rates in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction? An Analysis of a National Database.

INTRODUCTION: The current standard of practice in implant-based breast reconstruction is irrigation of the mastectomy pocket with antimicrobial solution before implant placement. Prior to being banned and formally recalled in January 2020, bacitracin was a very commonly utilized antibiotic. This study characterizes the effects of the national bacitracin ban on implant-based breast reconstruction infection rates by using a nationwide database to compare complication rates before and after bacitracin was banned. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried retrospectively for all patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction before the bacitracin ban (2012-2019) and afterwards (2020). Demographics, comorbidities, and complications were collected. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were conducted to determine if there were significant changes in wound complications, local wound infections, and systemic infections between the 2 case-control matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 37,126 patients were in the pre-ban cohort and 6333 patients were in the post-ban cohort. Before matching, there were significant differences in race distribution, BMI, ASA class, inpatient vs. outpatient status, preoperative smoking, and preoperative diabetes mellitus (all P < .05). After case-control matching, there were 6313 patients in each cohort. Univariate analysis revealed differences in postoperative superficial and organ space surgical site infection, wound complications/infections, all cause complications, and reoperations (all P < .05). Multivariate analysis showed that patients who underwent breast reconstruction before the ban had decreased odds of having wound infections, related infections, all cause complications, and reoperations (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: This study provides a macroscopic view into the effects of the formal injectable bacitracin ban on breast reconstruction outcomes. Patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction after the ban of injectable bacitracin had higher odds of developing wound infections, related infections, and reoperations. More study into suitable alternatives to injectable bacitracin for surgical site antimicrobial irrigation is warranted.

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.

Is Iatrogenic Implant Contamination Preventable Using a 16-Step No-Touch Protocol?

Background: Intraoperative contamination of the surgical field during aesthetic breast augmentation may lead to implant infection with devastating consequences. This study covers a period of 30 years and is divided into 2 phases: a retrospective phase from 1992-2004 when a standard approach was used and a prospective phase from 2004-2022 when a no-touch approach was implemented to avoid contamination. Methods: Patients in the standard and no-touch groups underwent aesthetic breast augmentation by the same senior surgeon (FDP) in the same outpatient surgical facility during the 30-year period of the study. Patients are divided into 2 groups: from 1992-2004 and from the implementation of the no-touch protocol in 2004-2022. Results: Patients who underwent breast augmentation using the no-touch approach developed no infections, whereas the standard group had an infection rate of 3.54% (P = .017). The validity of this finding is discussed. Conclusions: The no-touch approach as described in this article was effective in reducing implant infection rate when performing aesthetic breast augmentation by 1 surgeon at 1 surgical center during an 18-year observation period. Multicenter prospective cooperative studies are necessary to validate perioperative iatrogenic contamination as the cause of implant infection and to explore optimal approaches that could eliminate implant contamination.

Rare Presentation of Breast Implant Infection and Breast Implant Illness Caused by Penicillium Species.

What is breast implant illness? What is the proposed pathophysiology behind breast implant illness? What are the most common etiologies of fungal breast implant infections? What risks should patients undergoing breast augmentation be informed of?

Effect of Breast Silicone Implant Topography on Bacterial Attachment and Growth: An In Vitro Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The mechanisms underlying capsular contracture remain unclear. Emerging evidence supports the inflammation hypothesis, according to which bacteria from an adherent biofilm cause chronic inflammation and collagen deposition on the implant and trigger capsular contracture. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of different types of breast implants on the growth of Staphylococcus aureus, S. epidermidis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which are commonly found in biofilms in infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bacteria were grown in tryptic soy broth at 37°C for 2, 6, and 24 h and subsequently incubated for 24 h on 12 shell sections of smooth, nano-, and macrotextured breast implants. After incubation, the solutions were ultrasonicated and bacterial numbers were determined by serial dilution. S. aureus were fixed, washed with phosphate-buffered saline, dehydrated in ethanol, and coated with a platinum film to visualize the presence of biofilms by scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The numbers of S. aureus and S. epidermidis attached to the smooth and nanotextured surface implants were significantly lower than those on the macrotextured surface for all incubation times, whereas the number of P. aeruginosa was non-significantly lowest on the nanotextured surface after 24h incubation. Biofilms on smooth and nanotextured implant surfaces showed patchy patterns on scanning electron microscopy in contrast to the continuous pattern detected on macrotextured implants. CONCLUSION: Nanotextured breast implants may limit bacterial growth and thus prevent capsular contracture.

Salvage of infected implant-based breast reconstructions in morbidly obese patients with explantation and replacement with an autologous muscle-sparing latissimus dorsi flap.

Morbidly obese patients who undergo reconstruction with implants after mastectomy are at higher risk of reconstructive failure. Prosthetic infection historically required explantation with plans for delayed implant-based reconstruction or conversion to autologous tissue. Loss of the skin envelope in the delayed setting often leads to poor aesthetic outcomes. Recently, several different approaches for salvage of infected implant-based reconstructions with immediate prosthetic replacement have been described. While these strategies have proven useful in many patients, we find a prohibitive risk of failure of this approach in the morbidly obese, especially in those undergoing chemotherapy or who have been radiated. Instead, we have offered these patients salvage of their reconstructions with explantation and immediate autologous conversion to a muscle-sparing latissimus dorsi flap. Here, we report on 11 morbidly obese patients where this strategy was utilized.

Prototheca wickerhamii breast implant infection after reconstructive surgery: a new level of complexity.

We report the first published case of Prototheca wickerhamii breast implant infection. This occurred after mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, breast reconstruction, implant revisions and breast seroma aspirations and was preceded by polymicrobial infection. Definitive treatment required implant removal and intravenous liposomal amphotericin B. The management of breast prosthesis infections is discussed.

Management of periprosthetic breast infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The current management of an infected breast implant is varied. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to synthesise the current evidence and establish the efficacy of the various managements of infected breast implants. METHODS: A comprehensive search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases was conducted for primary clinical studies that report on the management of infected breast implants from 1946 to September 2019. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with successful treatment. RESULTS: Nineteen articles that involve 1044 patients were included. Overall, 29.00% (95% CI = from 11.51% to 50.58%) of the patients with mild infection were treated exclusively with antibiotics, of which, 81.41% (95% CI = from 57.82% to 96.63%) were successfully treated without the need for surgical intervention. Another 39.01% (95% CI = from 21.41% to 58.23%) of the patients underwent surgical salvage of the infected breast implants, of which 84.56% (95% CI = from 74.92% to 92.20%) successfully retained the salvaged implants without infection recurrence. Meanwhile, 35.01% (95% CI = from 27.01% to 43.57%) of the patients underwent explantation of the infected breast implant, of which, only 39.02% (95% CI = from 23.93% to 55.28%) had re-insertion of a new implant on a later date and 4.99% (95% CI = from 1.66% to 9.99%) of these patients had recurrence of infection requiring removal of the infected implant. The commonest complication was capsular contracture, which was reported in 10.78% (95% CI = from 4.41% to 19.49%) of the patients. Changes in the quality of life and cost implications were not reported. CONCLUSION: This study consolidates current available evidence on the management of infected breast implants, which could assist decision-making and improve patient education; however, current data are limited because of the lack of level-1 evidence.

Surgical cure of clarithromycin resistant Mycobacterium chelonae breast implant infection: A case report and review of the literature.

Clusters of patients who obtain cosmetic surgeries abroad have developed surgical site infections due to rapid growing non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). These are usually treated with a combination of surgery and months of anti-mycobacterial therapy, but poor outcomes, including permanent scarring are common. We present a case of a 36-year-old female who developed a clarithromycin-resistant M. chelonae (CRMC) infection after undergoing breast augmentation in the Dominican Republic. She underwent debridement and explant of her silicone implants, but due to a series of complications including discordant antimicrobial susceptibility testing profiles, GI side effects, and then pregnancy, she was unable to receive typical multidrug anti-mycobacterial therapy after surgery. She received close clinical follow up and demonstrated full recovery without any evidence of recurrence of infection at 9 months of follow up. We searched the literature for cases of NTM surgical site infection after breast surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first case report of confirmed NTM breast implant infection being cured with surgery alone, and only the second report of clarithromycin resistant M. chelonae in a patient without disseminated infection or pre-exposure to macrolides. The increasing prevalence of drug resistant NTM infections is an emerging concern for clinicians treating patients with complications related to medical tourism.

Breast Implant Infections: An Update.

Prosthetic breast implantation is a common surgical procedure for augmentation and reconstruction after mastectomy. The incidence of implant infection is 1% to 2.5% and is higher for reconstruction following mastectomy compared with augmentation. Most infections are caused by gram-positive pathogens, such as coagulase-negative staphylococci, Cutibacterium species, Staphylococcus aureus, and streptococci. Acute infections are usually associated with fever and breast pain, erythema, and drainage. Subacute infections may present with chronic pain, persistent drainage, failed healing of the incision site, or migration of the implant. Depending on severity of infection, patients are started on empiric intravenous or oral antibiotics and closely monitored.

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.

The microbial epidemiology of breast implant infections in a regional referral centre for plastic and reconstructive surgery in the south of France.

BACKGROUND: Breast implant infections are usually caused by Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. Gram-negative bacilli are rarely reported to be involved in breast implant infections. METHODS: Thirty-seven cases of microbiologically confirmed breast implant infection managed from January 2008 to June 2012 in the study centre were reviewed, including 10 cases from the study centre itself and 27 cases from private clinics in the region. RESULTS: The prevalence of breast implant infection in the study centre was 0.74% of breast implantation, i.e., 3.23% in breast reconstruction for breast cancer and 0.27% in aesthetic breast augmentation (p=0.0002). Of the 37 cases, 30% had undergone radiotherapy and 11% had undergone a lymph node dissection. S. aureus was identified in 18 cases, Gram-negative bacilli in 10 cases, coagulase-negative staphylococci in eight cases, anaerobic bacteria in eight cases, and streptococci in three cases. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the second most commonly identified pathogen. Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most frequent coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species. In addition to Propionibacterium acnes and Actinomyces neuii, other facultative and strict anaerobic bacteria have not been reported before, e.g., Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, Corynebacterium simulans, Dermabacter hominis, Finegoldia magna, and Peptoniphilus harei. Seventy-percent of cases were treated by immediate implant removal. All cases treated only with antibiotics were treated with surgery at the second visit. CONCLUSIONS: The microbiological epidemiology was noted by an increasing the proportion of Gram-negative bacteria and anaerobic bacteria detected with the advent of MALDI-TOF MS and molecular identification for diagnosis.

Osteomyelitis of sternum and rib after breast prosthesis implantation: A rare or underestimated infection?

Sternum and rib osteomyelitis complicated from breast implant infection is rare. We report a case of early sternum and rib osteomyelitis occurred during breast implant infection managed in an inter-regional referral center for bone/joint infections in the south of France.