Your institution is subscribed to Read Institutional Edition. Log in or Sign Up to read full text articles.

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Periprosthetic Infection in Primary and Secondary Augmentation Mammoplasty Using Round Silicone Gel Breast Implants: Comparative Analysis of 2521 Primary and 386 Secondary Mammoplasties in a Single Surgeon Practice

Umar Daraz Khan
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2020 September 29
32995984

INTRODUCTION: Wounds are generally classified as clean, clean contaminated, contaminated and dirty. Aesthetic surgery, including breast augmentation, is classified as clean or clean contaminated. The presence of bacteria on the skin, in nipple secretions, in superficial and deep parenchymal samples and also the presence of bacteria in capsules and on implants justifies the use of antibiotics. However, there is a paucity of information about whether added bacterial flora on the capsule of the implant pockets, and the handling of these capsules as capsulotomy or capsulectomy makes secondary augmentation mammoplasty more prone to wound healing issues or periprosthetic infection. The current study is the analysis carried out between primary and secondary augmentation mammoplasties to look at the incidence of periprosthetic infection between the two groups.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective data analysis for periprosthetic infection and wound healing issues following primary and secondary augmentation mammoplasties performed between April 1999 and April 2019 was carried out.

RESULTS: A total of 2521 (5042 breasts) primary and 386 (772 breasts) secondary augmentation mammoplasty data were available for analysis. Periprosthetic infection was seen in 0.7% and 0.5% of the primary and secondary augmentations, respectively, with no significant difference. Wound healing issues were significantly higher in primary augmentation mammoplasty.

CONCLUSION: There was a marginally higher incidence of periprosthetic infection in primary augmentation mammoplasty as compared to secondary augmentation mammoplasty; however, the difference was not significant. On the contrary, the wound healing and superficial skin issues were higher in primary as compared to secondary augmentation mammoplasty, and the difference was statistically significant.

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 .

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Trending Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
32995984
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"

We want to hear from doctors like you!

Take a second to answer a survey question.