PET/CT Recognition of Costal Cartilage Infection After Breast Implant Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative infection of breast implants can lead to implant removal and other complications. This study aimed to investigate the presence of costal cartilage infection following breast implant surgery and the diagnostic role of PET/CT in identifying this rare complication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study included 16 patients with persistent infections after breast implant removal surgery. Patients underwent PET/CT scans before surgery, and surgical plans were made based on PET/CT findings. Surgical procedures were guided by PET/CT, and specimens were collected for pathological examination and microbiological culture. Follow-up assessments were performed at 1, 3, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Among the 16 patients, 11 were diagnosed with costal cartilage infection, whereas 5 had subcutaneous soft tissue infections. PET/CT accurately identified costal cartilage infection in all cases and localized the infected costal cartilage in the majority of cases. Microbiological culture results showed various pathogens. All patients were cured with one or staged surgery. CONCLUSION: Costal cartilage infection following breast implant surgery is a significant concern. PET/CT plays a crucial role in the accurate diagnosis and localization of infected costal cartilage, aiding in appropriate surgical management. Patients should be closely monitored for the possibility of costal cartilage infection when experiencing persistent symptoms after breast implant surgery.

Effectiveness of extended antibiotic prophylaxis in implant-based breast reconstruction surgery: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Considerable research has been carried out on the postoperative benefits of extended antibiotic prophylaxis (EAP) in different surgical contexts, generating various results regarding its effectiveness. Some studies indicate positive outcomes, whereas others indicate no significant advantages. Our approach involves conducting a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a more nuanced understanding of the role of extended antibiotic use because of the lack of a consistent consensus. METHODS: A thorough search of the Cochrane Library, Embase, and MEDLINE electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant studies. The metafor package in R software was used for meta-analysis. We collected risk ratios (RRs) for surgical site infection (SSI) in the EAP versus non-EAP groups from the included studies to assess the effects of EAP on reducing the risk of SSI. The meta-analysis used a random-effects model, and effect sizes were presented with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Fourteen studies, involving 12,572 patients who underwent implant-based reconstruction postmastectomy, were included. Pooling the results of the studies that used EAP until drain removal revealed no protective effect of EAP against SSI risk (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.60-1.18). Similarly, our analysis revealed no significant benefit of EAP in studies where EAP was not contingent on drain removal (RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.46-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: EAP administration did not decrease the incidence of SSI in individuals undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction surgery postmastectomy.

Evaluation of post-operative complications and adjuvant treatments following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix.

BACKGROUND: In immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), it is unclear whether there is any difference in the complication rates between prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement without acellular dermal matrix (ADM). AIM: To compare the rates of early post-operative complications and time to initiation of adjuvant treatment in patients undergoing IBR between prepectoral and subpectoral implant placement without ADM for the two surgical procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively retrieved data of patients who underwent IBR with prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 in a large cancer center in France. RESULTS: We included 192 patients: 119 in the prepectoral and 73 in the subpectoral group. Their clinical characteristics were similar. Thirty patients (15.6%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, among them 27 (14.1%) received it within 12 weeks, and there was no difference between the groups (p = 0.12). In the prepectoral group, 39 patients (32.8%) received adjuvant radiotherapy versus 5 (6.8%) in the subpectoral group (p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in time to treatment commencement. Overall, 35 patients (29.4%) in the prepectoral group and 17 (23.3%) in the subpectoral group experienced post-operative complications (p = 0.44). Using multivariable analysis, the only factor associated with post-operative complications was determined to be mastectomy weight (odds ratio 1.98 (1.10-3.59) for weight ≥500 g; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Prepectoral implant placement without ADM can be proposed to patients undergoing IBR with an indication for adjuvant treatment. However, in our study, the reoperation rate with this technique was slightly higher (p = 0.008). This is partly due to the learning curve for surgeons using this new technique.

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.

Outcomes in Subfascial Versus Subglandular Planes in Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Breast augmentation is the most commonly performed aesthetic surgery procedure in women worldwide. The use of the subfascial plane has been suggested to decrease the incidence of capsular contracture compared with the subglandular plane, while simultaneously avoiding the complication of animation deformity in the subpectoral plane. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the adverse outcomes of subfascial vs subglandular planes in breast augmentation. This review was registered a priori on OSF (https://osf.io/pm92e/). A search from inception to June 2023 was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. A hand search was also performed. All randomized and comparative cohort studies that assessed the use of the subfascial plane for breast augmentation were included. Outcomes evaluated included the incidences of seroma, hematoma, infection, rippling, capsular contracture, and revision surgery. Ten studies were included in this systematic review. Three randomized controlled trials and 7 comparative cohort studies were used for quantitative synthesis. There was a significant difference favoring subfascial compared with subglandular planes in the incidence of hematoma, rippling, and capsular contracture. All included studies had a high risk of bias. The current evidence suggests that the subfascial plane for breast augmentation decreases the risk of capsular contracture, hematoma, and rippling compared with the subglandular plane. Further randomized evidence with high methodological rigor is still required to validate these findings.

Preoperative depression is an independent risk factor for short-term morbidities in autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Depression is notably common among patients who have undergone mastectomy. Several post-mastectomy patients opt for elective breast reconstruction. However, evidence on the influence of preoperative depression on breast reconstruction outcomes remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of preoperative depression on the short-term outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) using a comprehensive national registry. METHODS: Patients who underwent ABR or IBR were identified from the national inpatient sample from Q4 2015-2020. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare in-hospital outcomes between the patients with and without depression, adjusted for demographics, primary payer status, hospital characteristics, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among the 12,984 patients who underwent ABR, 1578 (12 %) had depression whereas 1980 (11 %) out of 17,963 patients who underwent IBR had depression. In ABR and IBR, preoperative depression was associated with higher superficial wound complications (ABR, aOR = 1.386, 95 % CI = 1.035-1.856, p = 0.03; IBR, aOR = 1.281, 95 % CI = 1.001-1.638, p = 0.04), hemorrhage/hematoma (ABR, aOR = 1.164, 95 % CI = 1.010-1.355, p = 0.04; IBR, aOR = 1.614, 95 % CI = 1.279-2.037, p < 0.01), and longer hospital length of stay (p < 0.01). In ABR, patients with depression had higher incidences of infection (aOR = 1.906, 95 % CI = 1.246-2.917, p < 0.01) and sepsis (aOR = 15.609, 95 % CI = 1.411-172.65, p = 0.03). In IBR, patients with depression had higher risks of capsular contracture (aOR = 1.477, 95 % CI = 1.105-1.976, p = 0.01) and seroma (aOR = 1.489, 95 % CI = 1.005-2.208, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Preoperative depression is independently associated with major morbidities after ABR and IBR. Preoperative screening for depression can be beneficial. Findings from this study can facilitate preoperative risk stratification and post-operative care for patients with depression.

Unnecessary Explantation of IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Saline Breast Implants Prompted byRadiologic Misdiagnosis of Rupture.

ABSTRACT: The unique dual-lumen and baffle design of the IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Saline breast implant gives it specific advantages over both silicone gel-filled and the original saline-filled implants. This internal baffle structure also gives it an appearance on various radiologic imaging studies that may be misinterpreted as a rupture because of similarities to the well-known radiologic appearance of a ruptured silicone gel implant. Patients may present with various misinterpreted imaging studies, highlighting the need for plastic surgeons and radiologists to be familiar with the normal appearance of the intact IDEAL IMPLANT and be able to distinguish it from a ruptured IDEAL IMPLANT. The radiology findings must be correlated with the clinical findings, or an intact IDEAL IMPLANT misdiagnosed as ruptured, may cause unnecessary patient worry, and may prompt unnecessary surgery for removal or replacement.

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.

Augmentation mastopexy using the "double inner bra technique" (DIB) in post-bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Augmentation mastopexy has a 20-fold higher complication rate than primary augmentation. Performing augmentation mastopexy in post-bariatric patients poses an additional challenge owing to the reduced quality of the soft skin tissue. Therefore, it is technically complex and also fraught with complications. Implant dislocation, recurrent ptosis, wound healing problems with exposed implants, and the threat of implant loss are complications that must be prevented. METHODS: We present a case series study on our technique for stabilizing breast implants using the double inner bra technique (DIB) in which a laterobasal myofascial flap and an inferiorly based dermoglandular flap form a double inner bra for implant stabilization and protection. RESULTS: Thirty-seven cases were operated on using this technique from December 2020 to June 2023. No hematomas (0%), seromas (0%), infections (0%), and implant losses (0%) were recorded. Moreover, none of the patients had implant malposition (0%). With regard to recurrent ptosis mammae or waterfall deformity, 7 cases (2.6%) showed early ptosis within the first 3 months, and the number of ptosis decreased over time. Furthermore, 5 (1.81%) patients showed ptosis mammae after 6-12 months. Implant defect or rupture has not yet occurred (0%). CONCLUSION: The DIB is an easy-to-learn and versatile technique. It has low complication rates and can be used to achieve esthetically satisfactory mid- to long-term results.

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.

The influence of a previous implant-based breast reconstruction on postoperative sensation of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap.

BACKGROUND: Implants and DIEP flaps have different outcomes regarding postoperative breast sensation. When compared to the preoperative healthy breast, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) negatively influences postoperative breast sensation. However, it is currently unknown whether a prior IBBR also influences postoperative sensation of a replacing DIEP flap. The goal of this cohort study is to evaluate the influence of an IBBR on the postoperative sensation of a replacing DIEP flap. METHODS: Women were included if they received a DIEP flap reconstruction after mastectomy, with or without prior tissue expander (TE) and/or definitive breast implant. Sensation was measured at four intervals in 9 areas of the breast with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: T0 (preoperative, implant/no reconstruction), T1 (2-7 months postoperative, DIEP), T2 (± 12 months postoperative, DIEP), Tmax (maximum follow-up, DIEP). Linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the relationship between an implant/TE prior to the DIEP flap and recovery of breast sensation. RESULTS: 142 women comprising 206 breasts were included. 48 (23.3%) breasts did, and 158 (76.7%) breasts did not have a TE/IBBR prior to their DIEP. No statistically significant or clinically relevant relationships were found between a prior implant/TE and recovery of DIEP flap breast sensation for the flap skin, native skin, or total breast skin at T1, T2, or Tmax. There were also no relationships found after adjustment for the confounders radiation therapy, BMI, diabetes, age, flap weight, follow-up, and nerve coaptation. CONCLUSIONS: An implant/TE prior to a DIEP flap does not influence the recovery of postoperative breast sensation of the DIEP flap.