Breast reconstruction with mentor anatomical implants and the risk of implant rotation: A retrospective study of 1134 women.

BACKGROUND: Implant rotation is a known complication to breast reconstruction using anatomical implants. However, there is a lack of large studies investigating the risk of implant rotation and potential predisposing risk factors. METHOD: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent breast reconstruction with Mentor anatomical implants from 2010 to 2021 at two Danish hospitals. We compared the risk of implant rotation between one- and two-stage breast reconstruction using univariate logistic regression. We analyzed the effect of biological mesh, immediate versus delayed reconstruction, and use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume on the risk of implant rotation. Finally, we analyzed the success rate of revision surgery for implant rotation. RESULTS: In total, 1134 patients were enrolled. Patients who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction (n = 720) had a significantly higher risk of implant rotation than those who underwent one-stage breast reconstruction (n = 426; 11% vs. 5%, p < 0.01). There was no significant association between implant rotation and the use of biological mesh, immediate breast reconstruction, or use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume. The success rate of revision surgery after implant rotation was 73% (62/85 rotations). CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage breast reconstruction significantly increased the risk of implant rotation compared to one-stage breast reconstruction. The overall risk of implant rotation was low and success rate of revision surgery was high. These findings suggest that anatomical implants are safe to use for breast reconstruction. However, surgeons and patients should be aware of the increased risk of implant rotation after two-stage reconstruction.

Self-reported systemic symptoms among women with breast implants.

Around 2,500 women receive a breast augmentation with silicone-based implants yearly in Denmark. A number of these women report various uncharacteristic systemic symptoms, which they attribute to the breast implants, including impaired cognition, joint pain, etc. This condition has been termed "breast implant illness" and is currently not a recognised diagnosis. The correlation between the patient's self-reported symptoms and breast implants has not been established and there is limited evidence that surgery has any effect. In this review, the current literature on the topic has been reviewed.

Christmas article: Have your cake and eat it too: a comparison of temptations in the confectionery and the operating room.

Introduction The use and consumption of "products", such as cosmetic procedures and confectionery, is on a rise in the Danish population. However, it has never been evaluated if the same tendency can be observed among the providers of these products. In view of the upcoming Christmas, we decided to investigate this delicate matter. Methods This study was a survey-based cross-sectional study examining demographics, professional backgrounds, as well as frequency and preferences regarding confectionery and cosmetic procedures among confectioners and plastic surgeons. Results A total of 90 persons answered the questionnaire. Results showed that consumption of confectionery was high among both confectioners and plastic surgeons, and that the use of cosmetic procedures was higher among both confectioners and plastic surgeons than among the background population. Both groups preferred to know the person who provided "the product" within their respective area. Conclusion Most plastic surgeons do not need to know their confectioner but would like to know their cosmetic procedure provider. So, if you, as part of the department management, or simply as a well-meaning colleague, want to treat your staff/colleagues, you can safely order cake from a random confectioner but not cosmetic procedures from a random surgeon! Funding none. Trial registration not relevant.

Antibiotic implant irrigation and deep infection: A retrospective study of 1508 patients undergoing breast reconstruction with implants.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic implant irrigation is increasingly used to prevent deep infection after implant-based breast reconstruction. However, there is limited evidence of the clinical effect. In this study, we compare the risk of a deep infection in a Danish population of women who either received antibiotic implant irrigation with gentamycin or vancomycin, or no irrigation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients undergoing all types of breast reconstruction with implants at Rigshospitalet and Herlev Hospital, Denmark, in 2010-2019. Logistic regression was used to compare the risk of deep infection between no irrigation and irrigation with gentamicin or vancomycin, and to account for the difference in risk between patient subgroups and risk factors. RESULTS: We included 1508 patients who received antibiotic irrigation with gentamicin (500 patients), vancomycin (304 patients) or no irrigation (704 patients). The univariable risk analysis showed a significant decreased risk of deep infection using gentamicin irrigation compared with no irrigation (OR 0.58, p<0.05). However, when adjusting for risk factors for infection, there was no significant decrease in the risk of infection when using gentamicin (OR 0.90, p=0.71) or vancomycin (OR 1.0, p=0.99) compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant effect of using antibiotic implant irrigation after isolating it from risk factors for deep infection. However, due to the limitations of the study, we cannot conclude that there is no effect of antibiotic implant irrigation. There is a need for a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effect, and potential side-effects, of antibiotic implant irrigation.

Immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: Evaluation of complications and safety.

OBJECTIVE: Immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is the method of choice for many plastic surgeons and patients, but the use of ADM remains a controversial subject in the literature. This study aimed to investigate complications, reconstructive failure and possible risk factors in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with ADM (primarily Strattice™). METHODS: We retrospectively examined all patients undergoing immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with ADM, during a five-year period (2014-2019) at a university clinic. Study outcomes were all complications and explantations. Complications were stratified within and after 6 months postoperatively and subcategorized by type of intervention. Explantations were subcategorized into loss of implant or salvage with immediate insertion of a tissue expander, the same or a new implant. RESULTS: We included 154 patients and 232 breasts. Complications within 6 months per patient included hematoma (4%), seroma (8%), infection (9%), necrosis, wound dehiscence and delayed wound healing (19%). The total complication rate per patient was 34%. Explantation occurred in 20 patients (13%) of which 9 (6% of all) had implant loss. Preoperative radiotherapy was a significant predictor of explantation (adjusted OR 4.9, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-23.5; p = 0.045), and smoking was also associated with risk of explantation, although only borderline significant (adjusted OR 4.0, 95% CI, 1.0-15.8; p = 0.050). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates acceptable rates of re-operations and implant loss compared to other studies but highlights the importance of proper patient selection with regards to risk factors to minimize complications.