Antimicrobial Irrigation and Technique during Breast Augmentation: Survey of Current Practice
| Autor: | Mathew T. Epps, Todd E Thurston, Sarah Langsdon, Tara M. Lee, Mark A. Brzezienski, Taylor K. Pels |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Breast prostheses
Irrigation business.industry Dentistry Periprosthetic 030230 surgery Antimicrobial 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Cohort ComputingMethodologies_DOCUMENTANDTEXTPROCESSING Inframammary fold Medicine Surgery Original Article Implant business Breast augmentation |
| Zdroj: | Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open |
| ISSN: | 2169-7574 |
| Popis: | Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Breast augmentation is among the most common procedures performed in the United States. Though bacterial contamination of breast prostheses is associated with adverse sequelae, there are no universally accepted guidelines and limited best practice recommendations for antimicrobial breast pocket irrigation. We designed a survey to identify pocket irrigation preferences and antimicrobial techniques during implant-based breast augmentation among American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) members. Methods: In January 2018, a random cohort of 2,488 ASPS members was surveyed. Questions queried breast pocket irrigation methods and surgical techniques including implant placement, incision location, and implant soaking agents. An extensive literature review of breast pocket irrigation practices was completed and used as a basis for the survey. Results: The survey response rate was above the ASPS average at 16% (n = 407). Respondents preferred an inframammary incision (90%) and submuscular implant placement (92%). Triple antibiotic solution (TAS) and TAS + Betadine ± Bacitracin were preferred by 61% and Betadine variants by 11%. Preferred dwell times stratified to 30 seconds (39%), 1 minute (18%), 2–5 minutes (21%), and >5 minutes (22%). Among those employing a TAS variant, 53% preferred a suboptimal dwell time of ≤1 minute. Prostheses were soaked in TAS (42%), TAS + Betadine ± Bacitracin (15%), a Betadine variant (12%), or other (31%). Conclusions: Periprosthetic bacterial contamination leads to comorbidity following breast augmentation. Our results reveal significant variability regarding breast pocket irrigation techniques among ASPS members during cosmetic breast augmentation. These data suggest the need for best practice guidelines regarding breast pocket irrigation and implant soaking agents. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|