Antibiogram for Periprosthetic Infections: A Tool for Better Informed Selection of Empiric Antibiotics for Surgical Site Infections.

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic infection after breast reconstruction is not an uncommon complication, with incidence up to 24%. These infections are often treated empirically without knowing the causative bacteria or its sensitivities to various antibiotics. Even if cultures are obtained, results may not be available for several days. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 553 patients at a single institution between January 2009 and July 2014 was performed, identifying patients who (1) underwent implant-based breast reconstruction and subsequently suffered an infection and (2) had cultures available with sensitivities. We reviewed patient demographics, implant characteristics, prophylactic intravenous antibiotics, oral antibiotic maintenance used, microbiologic details, and outcomes. The goal was to identify the most common causative bacteria, as well as their sensitivities to commonly used antibiotics, to help guide antibiotic decision-making. RESULTS: Of the 553 patients who underwent implant-based reconstruction, 114 (20.6%) patients suffered periprosthetic infections. Of these patients, 32 (28.1%) patients (56 reconstructions, with 33 tissue expanders and 23 implants) had cultures performed revealing 43 bacterial species, with the most common being Staphylococcus aureus (23.2%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (26.8%). Ceftazidime and piperacillin/tazobactam were equally effective covering 100% of Pseudomonas, enteric, and atypical organisms (P = 1), whereas vancomycin covered 100% of gram-positive organisms. Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole covered 100% of S. aureus, whereas clindamycin only covered 71% of S. aureus (P = 0.03). Additionally, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole was better able to cover atypical and enteric organisms. Ciprofloxacin covered 71% of Pseudomonas compared with 56% for levofloxacin (P = 0.14). Interestingly, cephalexin, a common choice for perioperative prophylaxis, was highly ineffective for gram-positive species in patients who later returned with infections. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the efficacy of current intravenous antibiotics protocols but questions the efficacy of both clindamycin and levofloxacin in empirically treating periprosthetic infections and cephalexin in providing effective perioperative prophylaxis against skin flora. Because bacterial sensitivities vary by location and patient population, this study encourages other centers to develop their own antibiogram specifically tailored to periprosthetic infections to improve antimicrobial decision making and potentially improve implant salvage.

Revisiting the free nipple graft: an opportunity for nipple sparing mastectomy in women with breast ptosis.

OBJECTIVE: Nipple areolar complex (NAC) sparing mastectomy improves the cosmetic outcome of patients with breast cancer. However, women with significant breast ptosis are not candidates for this technique due toexcessive skin flap length and ensuing risk of NAC ischemia.1 (-) 3 We report a novel technique using free nipple graft during skin sparing mastectomy for patients with significant ptosis while concurrently maintaining oncologic integrity. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: Community and tertiary care hospital practices. PATIENTS: Women with breast cancer desiring NAC preservation who are otherwise candidates for nipple sparing mastectomy, but with significant breast ptosis that precludes NAC viability. All women underwent immediate, autologous breast reconstruction. INTERVENTIONS: Bilateral and unilateral free nipple grafts were harvested, placed on ice during skin sparing mastectomy and free flap reconstruction, grafted at the conclusion of the case and secured with a bolster. OUTCOME MEASURES: Full or partial NAC preservation, ischemia time, local wound complications at NAC grafting site, pathologic outcomes. RESULTS: A total of three patients underwent free nipple grafting at the time of skin sparing mastectomy and free or pedicled flap for breast cancer between March and September 2012. Of five total nipple grafts, one had partial NAC loss but did not require operative debridement. Pathologic review of areolar tissue removed during intraoperative defatting of free nipple graft demonstrated residual duct epithelium. CONCLUSIONS: Women with significant breast ptosis that would preclude them from NAC sparing mastectomy can successfully preserve their NAC using a free nipple graft. Duct epithelium present in defatted tissue during preparation of the free nipple graft suggests that oncologic integrity can also be maintained.

Redefining the Anatomic Boundaries for Safe Dissection of the Skin Paddle in a Gracilis Myofasciocutaneous Free Flap: An Indocyanine Green Cadaveric Injection Study.

The gracilis free flap remains a versatile option in the reconstructive ladder. The flap itself can be harvested with or without a skin paddle. The gracilis myocutaneous free flap, however, is known for partial skin flap necrosis, especially in the distal one-third of the skin island. The gracilis myofasciocutaneous flap has been previously described as a technique to improve perfusion to the skin by harvesting surrounding deep fascia in a pedicled flap. However, limitations to this study required injection of multiple pedicles to demonstrate its perfusion. We demonstrate a novel technique using a cadaveric model that shows perfusion through injection via a single dominant pedicle (medial circumflex) with a large cutaneous paddle (average 770 cm2) with included deep fascia, using indocyanine green and near-infrared imaging. For comparison, we are also able to confirm the lack of perfusion to the distal cutaneous paddle when the fascia is not harvested, correlating with previous findings and ink injection studies. This novel technique is versatile, relatively inexpensive, and can demonstrate perfusion patterns via perforasomes that were otherwise not possible from previous techniques. Additionally, real-time imaging is possible, helping to elucidate the sequence of flow into the flap and potentially predict areas of flap necrosis.

Breast cancer recurrence after nipple-sparing mastectomy: one institution's experience.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been increasingly used to treat women with breast cancer who wish to preserve the overlying breast skin, but concern remains regarding tumor recurrence. We report our experience performing NSM for breast cancer treatment and prophylaxis over a 6-year period. METHODS: A retrospective chart review on patients undergoing NSM or skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) from 2005 to 2011 was performed. RESULTS: NSM patients were younger (P < .001), had a lower body mass index (P < .001), and were associated with a family cancer risk (P = .01) but not genetic risk (P = .83). There was no difference in the distance between the tumor and the nipple-areola complex when comparing NSM and SSM (P = .47). There was no significant difference in recurrence (P = .08) or survival (P = .38) when comparing NSM and SSM after controlling for age, stage, and surgery laterality. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in survival or cancer recurrence for NSM or SSM. NSM does not increase the risk of recurrence or decrease survival.