Article

Breast implant infections: is cefazolin enough?

Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
Plastic and reconstructive surgery (Impact Factor: 2.74). 09/2010; 126(3):779-85. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181e5f7ff
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bacterial infection is a well-known risk of breast implant surgery, occurring in 2.0 to 2.5 percent of cosmetic cases and up to 20 percent of reconstructive cases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a first-generation cephalosporin for perioperative prophylaxis; however, no guidelines exist for the empiric treatment of established breast implant infections. A recent increase in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections has prompted interest in using alternative antibiotics with anti-methicillin-resistant S. aureus activity for both prophylactic and empiric therapy. The goal of the present study was to assess the bacteriology and antibiotic susceptibility of breast implant-related infections at two tertiary care hospitals in the Texas Medical Center to determine whether a baseline for empiric therapy for breast implant infections could be established.
A retrospective review of patients who developed periprosthetic infections within 1 month after breast implant placement between 2001 and 2006 was completed. One hundred six patients with 116 infected breasts were identified. Patients were included in the study only if they had documented culture data.
Thirty-one breasts in 26 patients met inclusion criteria. Sixty-seven percent of the infected breasts had S. aureus infections; of these, 68 percent were methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections and 32 percent were methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infections. We noted Gram-negative rods and sterile cultures in 6 percent and 26 percent of breasts, respectively.
Because of the high incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections in breast implant recipients, we believe that choosing an antibiotic with anti-methicillin-resistant S. aureus activity is justified for empiric treatment of breast implant infections, until culture and sensitivity data, if obtained, become available.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
109 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. The rate of postmastectomy tissue expander (TE) infection remains excessively high, ranging between 2% and 24%. We hypothesized that current perioperative antimicrobial regimens utilized for breast TE reconstruction may be outdated as a result of recent changes in microflora and susceptibility patterns. Design and methods. We reviewed the records of all patients who had a TE reconstructive procedure and developed a definite breast TE infection between 2003 and 2010 at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Antimicrobials were stratified into 3 groups: systemic perioperative, local irrigation, and oral immediate postoperative antimicrobials. These were considered discordant if they did not target the isolated organisms, while a breakthrough infection was defined as an infection that occurred despite concordant antimicrobial coverage. Results. Overall, 75 patients with a definite TE infection were identified. The most common organisms identified were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (29%), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (15%), and gram-negative rods (26%). The use of systemic perioperative antimicrobials was deemed discordant in 51% of the cases. Although 79% of the patients received broad-spectrum perioperative local antimicrobial irrigation, 63% developed a breakthrough infection. Even though 61% received oral postoperative prophylactic antimicrobials, 63% of the times they were deemed discordant. Conclusions. Contrary to the proven effectiveness of a single dose of perioperative antibiotics, the common use of local antimicrobial irrigation and prolonged postoperative oral antibiotics appears to be an inadequate component of our preventive armamentarium. Also, because methicillin-resistant staphylococcal and pseudomonal infections occurred approximately 60% of the time, at institutions that have observed an increase of these organisms, it may be prudent that perioperative antimicrobials target these microorganisms.
    Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 01/2014; 35(1):75-81. · 4.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bacterial infection is a well-known risk of breast implant surgery. It is typically caused by bacterial skin flora, specifically Staphylococcus aureus and the coagulase negative staphylococci. There have been infrequent reports of breast implant infection caused by the atypical mycobacteria, of which Mycobacterium canariasense not yet reported in the literature.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 05/2014; 14(1):238. · 3.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Silicone gel-containing breast implants have been widely used for aesthetic and reconstructive mammoplasty. The development of a periprosthetic capsule is considered a local reparative process against the breast implant in which a variety of inflammatory cells may appear. Nevertheless, only few reports have evaluated the immunophenotypes of those inflammatory cells. Herein, we aim to provide more information in this regard evaluating 40 patients with breast implants. METHODS: We studied the immunophenotype of the inflammatory cells of capsular implants using antibodies against lymphocytes (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20, CD45, and CD30) and histiocytes (CD68). Percentages of CD3 and CD20 positive cells were compared using the unpaired Student's t test. Fisher's test was also used to compare Baker grades by implant type, implant profile, and location and the presence of inflammatory cells by implant type. RESULTS: The associations between Baker grades and implant type and location were statistically nonsignificant (p = 0.42 in both cases). However, the use of low profile implants was significantly associated (p = 0.002) with a higher proportion of Baker grades 3 and 4. We found evidence of inflammation in 92.5 % of all implant capsules, with a statistically significant (p = 0.036) higher proportion in textured breast implants. T cells predominated over B cells. Textured implants elicited a more marked response to T cells than smooth implants, with a similar proportion of helper and cytotoxic T cells. Textured implants showed statistically significant higher percentages of CD3 positive cells than smooth implants. Percentages of CD20 positive cells were similar in textured and smooth implants. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that textured breast implants might induce a stronger local T cell immune response. Our findings could shed some light to understand the association of silicone breast implants and some cases of anaplastic large cell lymphomas. Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study.
    Chirurgia Plastica 09/2012; 35(9):647-651.