Effectiveness of Single vs Multiple Doses of Prophylactic Intravenous Antibiotics in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is widely used to prevent infection after implant-based breast reconstruction despite the lack of high-level evidence regarding its clinical benefit. Objective: To determine whether multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is superior to single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) after implant-based breast reconstruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial was conducted at 7 hospitals (8 departments) in Sweden from April 25, 2013, to October 31, 2018. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older who were planned to undergo immediate or delayed implant-based breast reconstruction. Follow-up time was 12 months. Data analysis was performed from May to October 2021. Interventions: Multiple-dose intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis extending over 24 hours following surgery, compared with single-dose intravenous antibiotic. The first-choice drug was cloxacillin (2 g per dose). Clindamycin was used (600 mg per dose) for patients with penicillin allergy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was SSI leading to surgical removal of the implant within 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the rate of SSIs necessitating readmission and administration of intravenous antibiotics, and clinically suspected SSIs not necessitating readmission but oral antibiotics. Results: A total of 711 women were assessed for eligibility, and 698 were randomized (345 to single-dose and 353 to multiple-dose antibiotics). The median (range) age was 47 (19-78) years for those in the multiple-dose group and 46 (25-76) years for those in the single-dose group. The median (range) body mass index was 23 (18-38) for the single-dose group and 23 (17-37) for the multiple-dose group. Within 6 months of follow-up, 30 patients (4.3%) had their implant removed because of SSI. Readmission for intravenous antibiotics because of SSI occurred in 47 patients (7.0%), and 190 women (27.7%) received oral antibiotics because of clinically suspected SSI. There was no significant difference between the randomization groups for the primary outcome implant removal (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 0.69-2.65; P = .53), or for the secondary outcomes readmission for intravenous antibiotics (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.65-2.15; P = .58) and prescription of oral antibiotics (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51-1.02; P = .07). Adverse events associated with antibiotic treatment were more common in the multiple-dose group than in the single-dose group (16.4% [58 patients] vs 10.7% [37 patients]; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.05-2.55; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this randomized clinical trial suggest that multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is not superior to a single-dose regimen in preventing SSI and implant removal after implant-based breast reconstruction but comes with a higher risk of adverse events associated with antibiotic treatment. Trial Registration: EudraCT 2012-004878-26.

Long-term outcomes of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without radiotherapy: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT) is a risk factor for impaired outcomes after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Large studies including long-term follow-up are relatively scarce. The purpose of this analysis was to assess long-term effects of RT in implant-based IBR, distinguishing between implant removal because of postoperative complications versus patient preference. METHODS: This population-based cohort study included all patients with breast cancer who underwent implant-based IBR in Stockholm between 2005 and 2015. Data were collected through national registers and medical charts. The main endpoint was implant removal owing to postoperative complications (wound breakdown, infection, bleeding) or patient preference (dissatisfaction, pain, capsular contracture), with or without conversion to autologous reconstruction. RESULTS: Some 1749 implant-based IBRs in 1687 women were included. Median follow-up was 72 (range 1-198) months. Reconstructions were divided according to receipt of RT: No RT (n = 856, 48.9 per cent), adjuvant RT (n = 749, 42.8 per cent), and previous RT (n = 144, 8.2 per cent). Implant removal occurred after 266 reconstructions (15.2 per cent); 68 (7.9 per cent) in the no RT, 158 (21.1 per cent) in the adjuvant RT, and 40 (27.8 per cent) in the previous RT group. Implant removal was because of postoperative complications in 152 instances (57.1 per cent) and was most common in the first 3 years. This was especially observed in the previous RT group, where 15 of 23 implant removals occurred during the first 6 months. Implant removal owing to patient preference (114 of 266, 42.9 per cent) became more common with increasing follow-up. CONCLUSION: Implant removal after implant-based IBR is significantly associated with RT. The reason for implant removal shifts over time from postoperative complications to patient preference.

Irradiation of the chest wall after breast removal and implant placement (reconstruction) increases the risk of complications. These may lead to removal of the implant. Some women then choose a new breast reconstruction without an implant. The aim of this project was to find out how much irradiation affects complications after breast reconstruction using implants. This work used information on women who had a breast reconstruction with implants in Stockholm, Sweden, from 2005 to 2015. The main focus was on removal of the implant. This could be due to complications or patient preference. Implant removal could be with or without a new breast reconstruction. Of 1749 reconstructed breasts in 1687 women, 266 implants were removed. This was most often because of a complication, especially in the first years after surgery, but nearly as often due to patient wish. Implant removal owing to patient wish occurred later. Irradiation was a major factor increasing the risk of implant removal, together with, for example, smoking and obesity.