Advertisement

Surgeons’ Dilemma: Treatment of Implant-Associated Infection in the Cosmetic Breast Augmentation Patient

  • Vasileios VasilakisEmail author
  • Feras Yamin
  • Richard G. Reish
Original Article Breast Surgery
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Augmentation mammaplasty is the most common plastic surgical procedure performed in the USA. The management of severe implant-associated infection is a challenge, and the traditional two-stage treatment is associated with significant limitations. The aim of this literature review is to provide a comprehensive analysis of all studies dealing with the management of severe infection or implant exposure following cosmetic breast augmentation.

Methods

The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched through February 2018 for studies on the management of severe infection and threatened or actual implant exposure following primary augmentation mammaplasty. Search terms used were “breast implant,” “breast prosthesis,” “breast augmentation,” “breast augmentation complications,” “infected implant,” “implant salvage” and “implant exposure.”

Results

Five articles met inclusion criteria. There was inconsistency in the reporting of several key factors, such as the antibiotic regimens employed, culture sensitivities, time from diagnosis to treatment, implant characteristics, as well as the precise treatment of the capsule and pocket. A total of 58 implants were treated, of which 37 (63.8%) were exposed in the setting of infection and 21 (36.2%) were infected without exposure. One-stage implant salvage was employed in 31 implants and was successful in all. The capsular contracture rate with this approach was 6.5%. Antibiotic-alone, non-operative treatment was employed in the salvage of 22 implants, with success and capsular contracture rates of 77.3 and 13.6%, respectively. In the setting of severe periprosthetic infection in the absence of implant exposure, antibiotic-alone treatment was successful in the salvage of 13 out of 14 implants (92.9%).

Conclusions

The inconsistency and paucity of the data in the literature preclude definitive conclusions with regard to the optimal management of the threatened implant following augmentation mammaplasty. Given the excellent salvage rates in this setting, a more prominent role and liberal utilization of implant salvage are proposed.

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.

Keywords

Breast augmentation Implant salvage Implant-associated infection Literature review 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose. None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

For this type of study informed consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2017 Cosmetic plastic surgery statistics. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/plastic-surgery-statistics-report-2017.pdf. Accessed 23 April 2018
  2. 2.
    Araco A, Gravante G, Araco F, Delogu D, Cervelli V, Walgenbach K (2007) A retrospective analysis of 3000 primary aesthetic breast augmentations: postoperative complications and associated factors. Aesthet Plast Surg 31(5):532–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Araco A, Gravante G, Araco F, Delogu D, Cervelli V, Walgenbach K (2007) Infections of breast implants in aesthetic breast augmentations: a single-center review of 3002 patients. Aesthet Plast Surg 31(4):325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alderman AK, Collins ED, Streu R, Grotting JC, Sulkin AL, Neligan P, Haeck PC, Gutowski KA (2009) Benchmarking outcomes in plastic surgery: national complication rates for abdominoplasty and breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(6):2127–2133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kjoller K, Holmich LR, Jacobsen PH, Friis S, Fryzek J, McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L, Henriksen TF, Jorgensen S, Bittmann S, Olsen JH (2002) Epidemiological investigation of local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Denmark. Ann Plast Surg 48(3):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Washer LL, Gutowski K (2012) Breast implant infections. Infect Dis Clin N Am 26(1):111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spear SL, Seruya M (2010) Management of the infected or exposed breast prosthesis: a single surgeon’s 15-year experience with 69 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(4):1074–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Courtiss EH, Goldwyn RM, Anastasi GW (1979) The fate of breast implants with infections around them. Plast Reconstr Surg 63(6):812–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perras C (1965) The prevention and treatment of infections following breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 35:649–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Planas J, Carbonell A, Planas J (1995) Salvaging the exposed mammary prosthesis. Aesthet Plast Surg 19:535–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Azouz V, Mirhaidari S, Wagner DS (2018) Defining infection in breast reconstruction: a literature review. Ann Plast Surg 80(5):587–591Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spear SL, Howard MA, Boehmler JH, Ducic I, Low M, Abbruzzesse MR (2004) The infected or exposed breast implant: management and treatment strategies. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(6):1634–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sforza M, Andjelkov K, Husein R, Zaccheddu R (2014) Will 1-stage implant salvage after periprosthetic breast infection ever be routine? A 6-year successful experience. Aesthet Surg J 34(8):1172–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan UD (2010) Breast augmentation, antibiotic prophylaxis, and infection: comparative analysis of 1628 primary augmentation mammoplasties assessing the role and efficacy of antibiotics prophylaxis duration. Aesthet Plast Surg 34(1):42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reish RG, Damjanovic B, Austen WG Jr, Winograd J, Liao EC, Cetrulo CL, Balkin DM, Colwell AS (2013) Infection following implant-based reconstruction in 1952 consecutive breast reconstructions: salvage rates and predictors of success. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(6):1223–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weber J Jr, Hentz RV (1986) Salvage of the exposed breast implant. Ann Plast Surg 16(2):106–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fodor L, Ramon Y, Ullmann Y, Eldor L, Peled IJ (2003) Fate of exposed breast implants in augmentation mammoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 50(5):447–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Basile AR, Basile F, Basile AV (2005) Late infection following breast augmentation with textured silicone gel-filled implants. Aesthet Surg J 25(3):249–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryLong Island Plastic Surgical GroupGarden CityUSA
  2. 2.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryNassau University Medical CenterEast MeadowUSA

Personalised recommendations