Non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment using a pocket irrigator device; clinical, microbiological, radiographical and patient-centred outcomes-A pilot study.

AIM: The aim of this prospective cohort study was to assess the effect of a pocket irrigator/evacuator device (IED) in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total 24 patients having 38 implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis were included in this study. Peri-implant pockets were irrigated six times in three consecutive weeks. The primary outcome was bleeding on probing (BoP). Secondary outcome parameters included plaque index (Pl), suppuration on probing (SoP), probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), presence and numbers of periodontal pathogens. Parameters were assessed at baseline and 3 months after the last treatment. Treatment pain perception was scored using the visual analog scale (VAS) after the first and last treatment. RESULTS: At 3 months, IED treatment revealed significant reduction of peri-implant BoP (71% [±20] vs 57% [±28] [P = .014]) and peri-implant plaque scores (10 [±14] to 5 [±9] [P = .039] [T0 vs T3 respectively]). Significant reduction in mean peri-implant PPD from 4.92 mm (SD ± 1.28) to 4.66 mm (SD ± 1.35) (P = .041) was observed. In addition, a reduction in VAS pain score between the first and the last (6th) treatment was found (P = .039). No reduction in SoP (P = .088) was found. No changes in mean periodontal full mouth plaque, BOP, SOP and PPD levels, MBL and microbiological outcomes were found. CONCLUSION: Beneficial clinical effects in terms of BoP, PPD and PI were found at 3 months after IED treatment. However, the IED does not seem to effectively treat peri-implantitis in terms of disease resolution.

Use of antimicrobial agent pocket irrigation for cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection prophylaxis: Results from an international survey.

PURPOSE: Survey the usage and application protocol of antimicrobial agent pocket irrigation for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: Local antibiotic usage for CIED infection prophylaxis, in particular pocket irrigation, is a well-known strategy but with little data on its clinical effectiveness. METHODS: An anonymous voluntary online survey was sent to a total of 2,092 arrhythmia-oriented cardiologists in 51 countries (1,490 from the United States). RESULTS: There were 487 responses (response rate 23.3%: U.S. 28.2%, outside of the U.S. 11.1%). Eighty-seven percent of respondents use intraoperative antimicrobial agent pocket irrigation and/or an antimicrobial eluting pouch to reduce CIED infection. Fifty-four percent of respondents believe that it is effective to use an antimicrobial agent pocket irrigation to reduce CIED infection; 33% of respondents are uncertain; a few consider this strategy ineffective (13%) or offered no opinion. Significant differences exist in the practice patterns and beliefs between the U.S. and non-U.S. countries (P < 0.05). Ninety-eight percent of respondents report using the same pocket irrigation protocol for permanent pacemaker versus implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Bacitracin (48%), vancomycin (39%), and a cephalosporin (29%) are the most commonly chosen antibiotics. A majority of the respondents are unaware of the cost of using antimicrobial agent pocket irrigation (69%) and neither are they concerned (67%). CONCLUSION: This international survey suggests that, while there are little clinical data to support or discourage such practice, the usage of antimicrobial agent pocket irrigation for CIED infection prophylaxis is widely used in current practice.

Effect of pocket irrigation with antimicrobial on prevention of pacemaker pocket infection: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The presence of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) pocket infection is difficult to treat, causing serious clinical outcomes, but little is known for prevention. Results from some studies suggested that pocket irrigation could reduce infection while others showed conflicting results. We pooled the effects of pocket irrigations on the prevention of pocket infection by meta-analysis methods. METHOD: Relevant studies published before June, 2017 were retrieved mainly by the computer-based search of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, Chinese BioMedical, Global Health and BIOSIS Previews databases. Estimations of relative ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were pooled. Subgroup analyses according to potential key factors affecting the effects were conducted, which was confirmed by meta-regression. Sensitivity analysis and test for publication bias were also performed. RESULTS: We identified 10 studies providing data of 5467 patients receiving CIEDs implantations. Pooled infection rates were 1.48 and 3.49% respectively for medication and saline irrigation groups. Meta-analysis showed that medication irrigation conferred protection to pocket infection (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.63). Subgroup analysis showed that antibiotics, rather than non-antibiotics (antiseptics) exerting the protection. The first and second lines antibiotics against staphylococcus aureus, which is the main pathogen for pocket infection, were both effective (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.75 and RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.58 respectively for first line and second line therapies). Meta-regression revealed that region and class of irrigation medication completely explained the variance among studies and implied that effects of region were masked by medication types. Sensitivity analysis did not showed any significant change of the result and publication bias were not statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Pocket irrigation with antibiotics were effective for reducing pocket infection and should be encouraged in CIEDs implantation.

Efficacy of Povidone Iodine Against Microbial Biofilms in Breast Implants With Different Textures: Results From an in vitro Study.

Background: In the practice of breast augmentation and reconstruction, implant irrigation with various solutions has been widely used to prevent infection and capsular contracture, but to date, there is no consensus on the optimal protocol to use. Recently, application of povidone iodine (PI) for 30 min has shown in vitro to be the most effective irrigating formula in reducing contamination in smooth breast implants. However, as 30 min is not feasible intraoperatively, it is necessary to determine whether shorter times could be equally effective as well as to test it in both smooth and textured implants. Methods: We tested the efficacy of 10% PI at 1', 3', and 5' against biofilms of 8 strains (2 ATCC and 6 clinical) of Staphylococcus spp. on silicone disks obtained from Mentor® and Polytech® implants of different textures. We analyzed the percentage reduction of cfu counts, cell viability and bacterial density between treatment (PI) and control (sterile saline, SS) groups for each time of application. We consider clinical significance when > 25% reduction was observed in cell viability or bacterial density. Results: All textured implants treated with PI at any of the 3 exposure times reduced 100% bacterial load by culture. However, none of the implants reached enough clinical significance in percentage reduction of living cells. Regarding bacterial density, only 25-50 µm Polytxt® Polytech® implants showed significant reduction at the three PI exposure times. Conclusion: PI is able to inhibit bacterial growth applied on the surface of breast implants regardless of the exposure time. However, no significant reduction on living cells or bacterial density was observed. This lack of correlation may be caused by differences in texture that directly affect PI absorption.

Hot Topics in Breast Surgery.

Since the first implant-based breast surgeries were performed nearly 70 years ago, breast augmentation it has changed drastically. As understanding of breast augmentation has advanced, so too have the technologies and techniques used to improve results and minimize the risk of complications in breast implant surgery. This article reviews some of the novel techniques and technologies used today in breast augmentation surgery. How these tools and techniques will withstand the test of time remains to be seen, but they no doubt will add to the fascinating and ever-evolving history of breast augmentation.

Povidone-Iodine versus antibiotic irrigation in breast implant surgery: Revival of the ideal solution.

The use of povidone-iodine alone has been advocated by several authors who continued to utilize it for pocket irrigation despite the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s prohibition of 2000. However, in 2017, the FDA removed the ban against povidone-iodine use in breast augmentation. In the practice of breast augmentation, pocket irrigation with various solutions has been advocated in preventing infection and capsular contraction. However, debate continues regarding an ideal solution that is most efficacious and carries least side effects. Many studies have shown the superiority of povidone-iodine due to its broad antimicrobial spectrum, efficacy against biofilms, lack of resistance, and safe allergenic profile. Povidone-iodine is bactericidal against many multi-drug resistant organisms such as Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, and Mycobacterium. In addition, povidone-iodine also has microbicidal activity against fungi, protozoa, spores, and viruses. Despite widespread clinical use and extensive testing, there have been no reports of increased tolerance or resistance to povidone-iodine in any laboratory-derived or clinical isolates to date. Meanwhile, antibiotic resistance is a growing obstacle, and virtually all Gram-negative bacteria are now resistant to bacitracin. We are pleased with the recent change in the FDA's standing on povidone-iodine use in breast implant procedures given its superior antiseptic property, excellent safety profile, lack of resistance, accessibility, and low cost.