[Comparison of Two Umbilicoplasty Techniques in 72 Patients after Breast Reconstruction with a Free DIEP Flap] / Vergleich zweier Techniken der Umbilikoplastik bei 72 Patientinnen nach Brustrekonstruktion mit freier DIEP-Lappenplastik.

INTRODUCTION: The appearance of the umbilicus after DIEP flap surgery or abdominoplasty plays an important role in aesthetic perception (1). Although the umbilicus has no function, there is no doubt about the importance of its shape for the self-esteem of patients, especially after breast cancer (2). In the present study, we compared two of the preferred techniques described in the literature on 72 patients in terms of aesthetic outcome, complications and sensitivity: the caudal flap (domed shape) and the oval shape of the umbilicus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients who underwent a DIEP flap for breast reconstruction between January 2016 and July 2018 were retrospectively included in this study. Two techniques for umbilical reconstruction were compared: the transverse oval shape of the umbilicus and umbilicoplasty using a caudal flap, which results in a dome shape of the umbilicus. To compare the aesthetic results, an evaluation by the patients and an assessment by three independent plastic surgeons were carried out at least 6 months postoperatively. Patients and surgeons were asked to rate the general appearance of the umbilicus, including scarring and shape, on a scale from 1 to 6 (1=very good, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=sufficient, 5=poor, 6=insufficient). Furthermore, the occurrence of wound healing disorders was examined, and patients were asked about the sensitivity of the umbilicus. RESULTS: Both techniques showed similar degrees of aesthetic satisfaction (p=0,49) as part of the patients' self-assessment. The plastic surgeons gave the caudal flap technique a significantly better rating than the umbilicus with a transverse oval shape (p=0,042). More wound healing disorders occurred in the caudal lobule (11,1%) compared with the transverse oval umbilicus. However, this was not significant (p=0,16). A surgical revision was not necessary. The caudal flap umbilicus showed a tendency to improved sensitivity (60 vs. 45%), but this was not significant (p=0,19). CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction showed similar results for the two methods of umbilicoplasty. On average, both techniques were given a good rating for their results. However, surgeons rated the caudal flap umbilicoplasty as more aesthetically pleasing.

[Adequate Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Therapy of Periprosthetic Infections of the Breast - Review of 468 Consecutive Implant Removals]. / Gezielte Antibiotika-Prophylaxe und Therapie periprothetischer Infektionen der Brust ­ Erfahrungen aus 468 konsekutiven Implantatentfernungen.

Background Periprosthetic infections are feared complications in aesthetic as well as in reconstructive breast surgery. The purpose of our study was to evaluate our institution's specific culture data and to identify most common organisms and suitable antibiotics for prophylaxis and first line treatment in implant-based breast surgery. Patients and Methods We analyzed all patients with a change or removal of breast implants in the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2015 retrospectively. Based on the medical records, the surgical indications were identified and specifically analyzed for signs of infection and capsular fibrosis. In addition, we assessed all microbiological data of these interventions. Results 468 implant removals or exchanges were performed in 360 patients. Microbiological smears were gathered from 169 patients (249 implants). Bacteria were cultured from 23 implants (21 patients). In 6 additional implants (four patients) a periprosthetic infection was present, without pathogen detection. In most cases, advanced capsular fibrosis was the reason for implant exchange. In 17 smears bacterial detection was carried out despite absence of clinical signs of infection. In 17 cases coagulase-negative staphylococci were detected. In 4 Staphylococcus aureus, and once each E. coli, Morganella morganii and Proprionibacterium acnes (one double infection). All pathogens were sensitive to piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin. One resistancy was seen to cefuroxime and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, and 2 to gentamicin, ciprofloxacin and clindamycin. Conclusion In the majority of cases, pathogen detection was an incidental finding, while capsular contracture caused surgical revision. Pathogens and resistance patterns found in this study differed from the majority of international publications. In our institution, Cefuroxime and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid have been proven to be a reasonable choice for prevention and treatment of periprosthetic infections. Especially in fulminant infections piperacillin/tazobactam would be our choice for initial treatment, until the specific antibiogram is available.