Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Are We Providing Proper Prophylactic Antibiotic Coverage?

BACKGROUND: Infection after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and implant-based reconstruction (IBR) can be a devastating complication. The retained nipple may act as a portal or nidus for different ductal organisms, and as such, the bacteriology of surgical-site infections (SSIs) in this setting may not be adequately covered by current antibiotic recommendations. This study sought to evaluate SSI and reconstruction outcomes in relation to antibiotic choice and identify the different microbial species implicated. METHODS: A prospective database was reviewed for patients who underwent NSM with IBR from 2010 to 2019. Patient characteristics, operative details, antibiotic regimens, and subsequent treatment details were evaluated. The study analyzed SSI incidence, timing, and type of causative organisms. RESULTS: The study analyzed 571 NSMs with IBR performed for 347 patients (55% with direct implants and 45% with tissue expanders). The preoperative antibiotics consisted of cephalosporin alone for 65% of the patients, a more broad single-antibiotic use for 12% of the patients, and dual-coverage antibiotics for 20% of the patients. During a median follow-up of 1.7 years, SSI developed in 12% of the reconstructions, with 6% requiring prosthesis removal. The most common SSI organism cultured was Staphylococcal species. Neither pre- nor postoperative antibiotic choice was associated with incidence of infection, type of bacteria, or need for prosthetic explanation. CONCLUSION: For patients undergoing NSM with IBR, a more aggressive antibiotic choice is not associated with an improved SSI rate. Patient and treatment factors continue to carry the highest risk for SSI.

The use of surgical site drains in breast reconstruction: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Use of drains has been advocated in order to prevent seroma and hematoma; however, specific recommendations vary widely. The goal is to perform a systematic analysis of published literature on the use of drains for breast reconstruction. METHODS: The literature search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The search included the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Pubmed databases using the terms "breast reconstruction" and "breast flap" combined with "drain", "seroma," and "seroma prevention". The references were appraised in two rounds, by two independent reviewers; studies were included/excluded based on relevance of title and subsequently by the content of their abstracts/manuscripts. Outcomes regarding seroma, infection rate, length of stay (LOS), drainage, reconstruction type and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 2252 studies identified via search, 64 were relevant and 21 met inclusion criteria. Most of the study designs were case series or retrospective cohort studies (Level of Evidence III or IV), with the exception of one prospective randomized-controlled trial. Seroma rate was given in 18 studies, infection rate in 11, and criteria for drain removal in 19. Reoperation rate was available in 7 and LOS in 18 studies. The majority of studies (13) agreed to remove the drain when the output was less than 30 ml/24 h. Drain output was reported in 11, and 20 reported drain type used. CONCLUSION: There is sparse literature available with which to make evidence-based guidelines. A standardized guideline for reporting drain use is crucial to providing a better understanding of complications in breast reconstruction related to surgical drains.

Facelift Surgery Following Superficial Parotidectomy: Is it Safe?

INTRODUCTION: Patients who have previously undergone superficial parotidectomy may also seek facelift surgery for facial aging and rejuvenation. These patients present unique challenges compared to a standard facelift patient. Most concerning is the location of facial nerve branches, which may be superficial and displaced. In addition, significant contour deformities and abnormal scar patterns may be present. The purpose of the study is to review our series of patients and assess potential morbidity and safety of facelift surgery in superficial parotidectomy patients. METHODS: A retrospective case series was performed reviewing all patients who underwent facelift surgery following superficial parotidectomy from 2000 to 2017. Data were collected for: postoperative facial nerve deficit, soft tissue contour and scar deformities, facelift technique, ancillary soft tissue augmentation procedures and pre- and postoperative photographs. An evidence-based treatment algorithm to address specific problems in this patient population was developed. RESULTS: A total of seven patients were identified who underwent facelift surgery following parotidectomy. Patients underwent one of the standard SMAS procedure on the non-parotidectomy side, and surgical modifications were made to address the parotidectomy side; soft tissue augmentation was performed in two patients. Precautions to identify the facial nerve and prevent injury, including nerve monitoring and stimulation, were utilized in all seven patients. No permanent postoperative facial nerve injury was noted. CONCLUSION: Facelift following superficial parotidectomy was safely performed in all cases. Special consideration should be given to contour deformities, facial nerve location and scar placement. However, if approached properly, these patients can still be considered as suitable candidates for facelift surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.