Breast Pocket Irrigation Research Articles

Use of Antimicrobial Irrigation and Incidence of Capsular Contracture in Breast Augmentation and Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Capsular contracture (CC) is one of the most common complications of implant-based breast reconstruction or augmentation surgery. Common risk factors of CC include biofilm, surgical site infections, history of prior CC or fibrosis, history of radiation therapy, and implant characteristics. Though bacterial contamination of breast protheses is associated with adverse sequelae, there are not universally accepted guidelines and limited best practice recommendations for antimicrobial breast pocket irrigation. Despite advanced molecular biology, the exact mechanism of this complication is not fully understood. Interventions that decrease the rate of CC include antibiotic prophylaxis or irrigation, acellular dermal matrix, leukotriene inhibitors, surgical techniques, and others. However, there is inconsistent evidence supporting these risk factors, and the current data was based on broad heterogeneous studies. The objective of this review was to provide a summary of the current data of contributing risk factors as well as preventative and treatment measures for CC.Level of Evidence III 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 http://www.springer.com/00266.

Bacitracin for Injection Recall: Impact on Immediate Breast Implant Surgical Outcomes.

Background Triple-antibiotic irrigation of breast implant pockets is a mainstay of infection prophylaxis in breast reconstruction and augmentation. The recall of bacitracin for injection due to risk of anaphylaxis and nephrotoxicity in January 2020, a staple component of the irrigation solution, has raised concern for worsened postoperative sequelae. This study aimed to investigate pre- and post-recall implant-based breast surgery to analyze the impact of bacitracin in irrigation solutions on infection rates. Methods All implant-based breast reconstruction or augmentation surgeries from January 2019 to February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. In a regression discontinuity study design, patients were divided into pre- and post-recall groups. Patient demographics, surgical details, and outcomes including infection rates were collected. Differences in complication rates were compared between groups and with surgical and patient factors. Results 254 implants in 143 patients met inclusion criteria for this study, with 172 implants placed before recall and 82 placed after recall. Patients in each cohort did not differ in age, BMI, smoking status, or history of breast radiation or capsular contracture (p > 0.05). All breast pockets were irrigated with antibiotic solution, most commonly bacitracin, cefazolin, gentamycin, and povidone-iodine before recall (116,67.4%) and cefazolin, gentamycin, and povidone-iodine after recall (59,72.0%). There was no difference in incidence of infection (6.4% vs. 8.5%, p=0.551) or cellulitis (3.5% vs. 3.7%, p=0.959) before and after recall. Implant infection was associated with smoking history (p < 0.001) and increased surgical time (p=0.003). Conclusions Despite the recent recall of bacitracin from inclusion in breast pocket irrigation solutions, our study demonstrated no detrimental impact on immediate complication rates. This shift in irrigation protocols calls for additional investigations into optimizing antibiotic combinations in solution, as bacitracin is no longer a viable option, to improve surgical outcomes and long-term benefits.

Enhancing Patient Outcomes in Aesthetic Breast Implant Procedures Using Proven Antimicrobial Breast Pocket Irrigations: A 20-Year Follow-up.

Capsular contracture (CC) remains the most common complication of implant-based aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. With subclinical infection proven to be the primary etiology, antimicrobial breast pocket irrigation has been recommended as the key step to reduce CC but has not been universally adopted. The purpose of this study was to review the rates of CC observed when applying proven antimicrobial breast pocket irrigations. Data from patients undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation were recorded prospectively from 1997 to 2017. The irrigation was performed with either a Betadine-containing (50% Betadine or "Betadine triple") or a non-Betadine triple antibiotic regimen. The database was assessed to determine the type of implant used, the incidence of CC, and possible contributing factors. The degree of CC was recorded according to the Baker classification. A 20-year prospective data collection yielded 2088 patients with 4176 implants; of these patients, 826 had textured implants and 1262 had smooth implants. The incidence of Grade III/IV CC was found to be 0.57% in all patients undergoing primary breast augmentation (1.21% in textured implants and 0.16% in smooth implants). This study constitutes the largest and longest review of CC in a controlled, single-surgeon setting. The incidence of CC is low and reinforces the efficacy/utility of antimicrobial breast pocket irrigation. Both the Betadine and non-Betadine antibiotic regimens were found to be effective, with the Betadine regimen being preferred. Universal adoption of Betadine-containing antimicrobial breast pocket irrigation is recommended to reduce CC and other device-associated infections.

Comparison of Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Using Oxychlorosene versus Triple Antibiotic Solution for Pocket Irrigation.

Background:Breast pocket irrigation with antiseptic solutions is performed to reduce contamination with breast implants. The optimal antiseptic irrigation solution and the efficacy of individual practices are unclear. Oxychlorosene sodium is frequently used at our institution. Oxychlorosene is bactericidal with a mechanism of action of oxidation and hypochlorination. The purpose of our study was to compare the outcomes of oxychlorosene sodium irrigation with triple antibiotic solution (TAS) in implant-based breast reconstruction.Methods:All patients who underwent implant-based reconstruction after mastectomy were reviewed. The primary predictive variable was type of solution used for pocket irrigation (TAS or oxychlorosene). Outcome variables included surgical site infection, device removal, and wound complications.Results:Between 2013 and 2018, 331 implant-based breast reconstructions were performed. Of these, 62% (n = 206) received oxychlorosene for surgical pocket irrigation (group I), and 38% (n = 125) received TAS (group II). Group I had an 11.7% (n = 24) 90-day surgical site infection rate, with 4.9% (n = 10) requiring oral antibiotics, 2.4% (n = 5) requiring intravenous antibiotics without device removal, and 4.4% (n = 9) requiring prosthetic removal. Group II had an 11.2% (n = 14) 90-day infection rate, with 5.6% (n = 7) requiring oral antibiotics, 2.4% (n = 3) requiring intravenous antibiotics without device removal, and 3.2% (n = 4) requiring removal (P = 0.90). When comparing the cost of oxychlorosene irrigation with TAS irrigation, oxychlorosene was less expensive.Conclusions:Oxychlorosene and TAS have similar surgical site infection rates in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Ease of preparation and cost make oxychlorosene a more favorable option for antibiotic irrigation in reconstructive breast surgery with prosthetic devices.

Preventing Infection in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Evaluating the Evidence for Common Practices and Standardized Protocols.

Background:Infection following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) results in increased rates of hospital readmission, reoperation, patient and hospital expenses, and reconstructive failure. IBBR is a complex, multistep procedure, and there is a relative lack of high-quality plastic surgery evidence regarding “best practices” in the prevention of implant infections. In the absence of strong data, standardizing procedures based on available evidence can reduce error and improve efficacy and outcomes.Methods:We performed a focused literature review of the available evidence supporting specific interventions for infection prevention in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care that are applicable to IBBR. In addition, we examined previously published standardized perioperative protocols for implant reconstruction.Results:Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative planning and organization is crucial in IBBR. Preoperative planning involves skin decolonization in advance of surgery with either chlorhexidine gluconate or mupirocin. Intraoperative methods that have shown potential benefit include double-gloving, breast pocket irrigation, separate closing instruments, and the utilization of “no-touch” techniques. In the postoperative period, the duration of drain removal and postoperative antibiotic administration play an important role in the prevention of surgical site infection.Conclusions:There is a crucial need to establish an evidence-based set of “best practices” for IBBR, and there exists a paucity of evidence in the breast literature. These data can be utilized to develop a standardized protocol as part of a rigorous quality improvement methodology.

Post-Mastectomy Surgical Pocket Irrigation With Triple Antibiotic Solution vs Chlorhexidine Gluconate: A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing Surgical Site Infections in Immediate Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction.

Post-mastectomy pocket irrigation solution choice is debated and primarily surgeon dependent. We compare triple antibiotic solution (TAS) with 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG). The purpose of this study was to determine surgical site infection (SSI) rates after utilizing TAS vs CHG for breast pocket irrigation in immediate tissue expander (TE) breast reconstruction. A prospective, blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed in patients (18-81 years old) who underwent bilateral mastectomy with TE reconstruction. In each patient, 1 mastectomy pocket was randomized to TAS and the other to CHG. Both the TE and the pocket were irrigated in the respective solution. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI. Secondary outcomes were rates of mastectomy flap necrosis, hematoma, and seroma. A total of 88 patients who underwent bilateral immediate breast reconstruction were enrolled. Demographic and operative characteristics were equivalent because each patient served as their own control. Between the TAS and CHG groups, the incidence of SSI did not differ (5 [4.5%] vs 7 [8.0%], P = 0.35), including minor infections (2 [2.3%] vs 1 [1.1%], P = 0.56), major infections (2 [2.3%] vs 6 [6.8%], P = 0.15), and those resulting in explantation (2 [2.3%] vs 5 [4.5%], P = 0.25). Necrosis, hematoma, or seroma formation also did not differ. No patients who developed SSI received radiation. This study does not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in SSI between TAS and CHG irrigation, though TAS approached statistical significance for lower rates of infectious complications.

Commentary on: Implants and Breast Pocket Irrigation: Outcomes of Antibiotic, Antiseptic, and Saline Irrigation.

Commentary on: Implants and Breast Pocket Irrigation: Outcomes of Antibiotic, Antiseptic, and Saline Irrigation.

Implants and Breast Pocket Irrigation: Outcomes of Antibiotic, Antiseptic, and Saline Irrigation.

Breast implant-associated infection and capsular contracture are challenging complications that can result in poor outcomes following implant-based breast surgery. Antimicrobial irrigation of the breast pocket or implant is a widely accepted strategy to prevent these complications, but the literature lacks an evidence-based consensus on the optimal irrigation solution. The objective of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes, specifically capsular contracture, infection, and reoperation rates, associated with the use of antibiotic, antiseptic, and saline irrigation. A systematic review was performed in March 2020 based on the following search terms: "breast implant," "irrigation," "antibiotic," "bacitracin," "antiseptic," "povidone iodine," "betadine," "low concentration chlorhexidine," and "hypochlorous acid." Capsular contracture, infection, and reoperation rates were compared by analysis of forest plots. Out of the 104 articles screened, 14 met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in capsular contracture rates between antibiotic and povidone-iodine irrigation, although the data comparing these 2 groups were limited and confounded by the concurrent use of steroids. Antibiotic irrigation showed a significantly lower rate of capsular contracture compared with saline irrigation and a lower rate of capsular contracture and reoperation compared with no irrigation at all. Povidone-iodine was associated with lower rates of capsular contracture and reoperation compared with saline irrigation but there were no data on infection rates specific to povidone-iodine irrigation. Our study supports the use of antibiotics or povidone-iodine for breast implant irrigation. Further research is required to better determine which of these 2 irrigation types is superior.

Commentary on: In Vitro Evaluation of Common Antimicrobial Solutions Used for Breast Implant Soaking and Breast Pocket Irrigation-Parts 1 and 2.

Commentary on: In Vitro Evaluation of Common Antimicrobial Solutions Used for Breast Implant Soaking and Breast Pocket Irrigation-Parts 1 and 2.

In Vitro Evaluation of Common Antimicrobial Solutions Used for Breast Implant Soaking and Breast Pocket Irrigation-Part 2: Efficacy Against Biofilm-Associated Bacteria.

BackgroundBiofilm-associated bacteria have been observed in both breast implant revision and tissue expander-implant exchange surgeries. The utilization of antimicrobial solutions in breast surgery, especially those containing triple antibiotics (TAB) and/or 10% povidone-iodine (PI), may help reduce existing biofilm-associated bacteria, which is particularly important in a mature breast pocket that may contain residual bacteria from a previously colonized implant surface or, theoretically, bacteria that may arrive postoperatively through hematogenous spread.ObjectivesA series of in vitro assessments was performed to evaluate the antimicrobial utility of TAB and PI, either alone or in combination, against preformed biofilm-associated bacteria.MethodsPreformed biofilm-associated gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial strains were exposed to TAB and PI ± TAB for up to 30 minutes in a bacterial time-kill assay. Efficacy of various dilutions of PI and the effects of serum protein on PI efficacy were also investigated.ResultsTAB was ineffective at the timeframes tested when utilized alone; when utilized in conjunction with PI, significant log reduction of all biofilm-associated bacterial species tested was achieved when treated for at least 5 minutes. PI alone at a concentration of 25% or higher was also effective, although its efficacy was negatively affected by increasing serum protein concentration only for Staphylococcus epidermidis.ConclusionsOur data indicate that PI-containing solutions significantly reduce biofilm-associated bacteria, suggesting potential utility for breast pocket irrigation during revision or exchange surgeries. Care should be taken to minimize excessive dilution of PI to maintain efficacy.

In Vitro Evaluation of Common Antimicrobial Solutions Used for Breast Implant Soaking and Breast Pocket Irrigation-Part 1: Efficacy Against Planktonic Bacteria.

BackgroundPlanktonic bacteria can be inadvertently introduced during breast surgery procedures, which are hypothesized to lead to complications such as infection, capsular contracture, breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and a prolonged local inflammatory response. The utilization of antimicrobial solutions such as triple antibiotic solution (TAB) and/or 10% povidone-iodine (PI) in breast pocket irrigation or implant soaking has been proposed to reduce planktonic bacterial attachment and potential complications.ObjectivesA series of in vitro assessments were performed to evaluate the antimicrobial utility of TAB and PI, either alone or in combination, against planktonic bacteria.MethodsPlanktonic gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial strains were exposed to TAB and PI ± TAB for up to 10 minutes in a bacterial time-kill assay. The efficacy of various dilutions of PI as well as the effects of serum protein on PI efficacy were also investigated.ResultsTAB was ineffective at the timeframes tested (≤10 minutes) when utilized alone; however, when utilized with PI, significant log reduction of all tested planktonic species was achieved. PI alone was also effective, even including dilute concentrations (eg, 0.5% PI), although the presence of serum proteins required higher concentrations of PI (eg, 2.5%) to eradicate the bacterial load.ConclusionsOur data suggest PI-containing solutions may be preferred over either saline or TAB without PI for primary breast pocket irrigation and implant soaking in primary breast surgeries as a means to significantly reduce planktonic bacteria. These data provide an impetus for surgeons to re-evaluate the efficacy of TAB solution in these clinical settings.

Preliminary Outcomes of Hypochlorous Acid as an Adjunct for Pocket Irrigation in Revision Aesthetic Breast Surgery.

Capsular contracture is a challenging problem for plastic surgeons despite advances in surgical technique. Breast pocket irrigation decreases bacterial bioburden. Studies have shown that hypochlorous acid (HOCl; PhaseOne Health, Nashville, TN) effectively penetrates and disrupts biofilms; however, there are limited clinical data regarding this irrigation in breast augmentation. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of HOCl pocket irrigation in revision breast augmentation by evaluating rates of capsular contracture recurrence, infection, and allergic reactions. We performed an institutional review board-approved retrospective chart review of revision breast augmentation cases for Baker grade III/IV capsular contractures in which pockets were irrigated with HOCl. Data were obtained from 3 board-certified plastic surgeons. The study included 135 breasts in 71 patients, who ranged in age from 27 to 77 years (mean, 53.7 years). Follow-up ranged from 12 to 41 months (mean, 20.2 months). Postoperatively, there were 2 unilateral Baker grade III/IV recurrences at 13 months and 1 bilateral Baker grade II recurrence at 3 months. There were no infections or allergic reactions. The overall Baker grade III/IV capsular contracture recurrence rate was 0% at 12 months and 1.5% at 15 months. Breast pocket irrigation decreases bioburden, which may influence capsular contracture recurrence. We evaluated 3 varied applications of HOCl in revision aesthetic breast surgery and found a low capsular contracture recurrence rate and no adverse reactions. We plan to report our findings with HOCl in primary breast augmentation in the future, and other studies are being conducted on the efficacy of HOCl in aesthetic surgery.

Commentary on: Optimizing Breast Pocket Irrigation: The Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) Era.

Commentary on: Optimizing Breast Pocket Irrigation: The Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) Era.

Optimizing Breast Pocket Irrigation: The Breast Implant–Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) Era

Specific antimicrobial breast pocket irrigations have been proven over the past 20 years to reduce the incidence of capsular contracture by a factor of 10, and the emergence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and its link to bacteria/technique has created renewed interest in different antimicrobial breast pocket preparation agents. Our previous studies have identified that both Betadine-containing and non-Betadine-containing antimicrobial irrigations provide excellent broad-spectrum bacterial coverage. The current science of BIA-ALCL has implicated the Gram-negative microbiome as a key in pathogenesis. The aim of this study was to revisit the antimicrobial effectiveness of clinically utilized Betadine and non-Betadine solutions, along with other antimicrobial agents that have not yet been tested, against multiple organisms, including additional common Gram-negative bacteria associated with chronic breast implant infections/inflammation. Current and new antimicrobial breast irrigations were tested via standard techniques for bactericidal activity against multiple Gram-positive and Gram-negative strains. Test results are detailed and clinical recommendations for current antimicrobial irrigations are provided. Betadine-containing irrigations were found to be superior according to the testing performed. There are quite few misconceptions with regard to antimicrobial breast pocket irrigation. These are discussed and final evidence-based recommendations for practice are given.

Antimicrobial Irrigation and Technique during Breast Augmentation: Survey of Current Practice.

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. 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%). 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.

Discussion: The Questionable Role of Antibiotic Irrigation in Breast Augmentation

Discussion: The Questionable Role of Antibiotic Irrigation in Breast Augmentation

Pocket Irrigation and Technique During Reconstructive Surgery: An American Society of Plastic Surgery Survey of Current Practice.

Expander-to-implant is the most common breast reconstruction procedure in the United States. Irrigation with triple antibiotic solution (TAS), as described by Adams et al in 2006, has become standard of care to lower bacterial bioburden. However, several alternative solutions have been implemented with the literature lacking a consensus regarding use (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:30-36). We distributed a peer-reviewed survey among a cohort of American Society of Plastic Surgery (ASPS) members to assess pocket irrigation technique during implant-based reconstructive surgery. We then conducted a pilot in vitro study to determine antibacterial efficacy of the most preferred irrigation at preferred dwell times against select bacterial species linked to breast pocket contamination during reconstructive implant-based surgery. The survey was distributed a total of 3 times to a random cohort of 2488 ASPS members in January 2018. During in vitro studies, pure cultures of common breast flora were exposed to TAS versus saline control at 1, 2, and 5 minutes in a simulated in vivo cavity. Viable plate counts were used to assess cell viability. The response rate was above the ASPS survey average at 16% (n = 407). The population reflected a cross-section of practice types and experience levels. Triple antibiotic solution without Betadine was the favored irrigation at 41%, with 73% of its users preferring dwell times of 2 minutes or less. Over 30 distinct breast pocket irrigation solutions were identified. Bacteria added to the in vivo cavity survived a 2-minute dwell time with TAS as follows: 51% Staphylococcus epidermidis, 69% Escherichia coli, 88% Enterococcus faecalis, 88% Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and 98% Acinetobacter baumannii. Our survey data demonstrate significant variability in practice and lack of consensus among ASPS members regarding antimicrobial irrigation during reconstructive breast surgery. Our in vitro data underscores the importance of relating clinical practices with laboratory studies of microorganisms potentially linked to breast pocket contamination and suggests that TAS requires either dwell times greater than 5 minutes and/or the inclusion of efficacious antimicrobial agents (eg, Betadine). This finding has the potential to impact antimicrobial pocket irrigation and technique during breast reconstruction.

Comparison of Complications Following Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using Triple Antibiotic Solution versus Low Concentration Chlorhexidine Gluconate Solution

Background: Prevention of infection and capsular contracture remains a primary goal of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Previous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes with the use of triple-antibiotic solution (TAS) for breast pocket irrigation, but ready-to-use products have recently gained popularity. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes following IBBR between TAS and low-concentration chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) solutions. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 690 consecutive patients undergoing IBBR from 2008-2017. The TAS (n = 346) irrigation solution was composed of 1 g cefazolin, 80 mg gentamicin and 50,000 U bacitracin diluted in 500 mL of normal saline; the CHG (n = 344) irrigation solution was the commercially-available product Irrisept (0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate in sterile water, Irrimax Corporation, Lawrenceville, GA). Comparisons were made between demographic and clinical variables. Complications were recorded and statistical analysis, including multivariate regression analysis, was performed. Results: The TAS group underwent significantly more skin-sparing mastectomies, adjuvant chemotherapy/radiation and less direct-to-implant reconstruction than the CHG group. The CHG group experienced a significantly lower incidence of total complications (22.4% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.006), minor complications (8.7% vs. 16.5%, p = 0.003), infection (6.4% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.006) and seroma (2.6% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.011). There was a significantly increased rate of delayed wound healing in the CHG group. Multivariate analysis showed that the use of CHG solution significantly decreased the odds of any complication by 1.6-fold (OR 0.637, 95% CI 0.414 - 0.977) and the odds of infection by 2.4-fold (OR 0.420, 95% CI 0.218 - 0.809). There were no statistically significant differences in rates of capsular contracture or other complications. Conclusions: The use of CHG as a pocket irrigant in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is a reasonable alternative to other solutions, in efforts to minimize prosthetic based complications.

The Role of Antibiotics in Breast Pocket Irrigation and Implant Immersion: A Systematic Review.

Background:The usage of antibiotics and antiseptics to washout the breast pocket, or to soak the breast implant during surgery, has come under scrutiny in recent times. Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention give no recommendation for or against the usage of antibiotics in this regard. They do however offer a weak recommendation for washing tissues with iodophor. This systematic review aims to investigate the efficacy and impact of such topical antibiotic or antiseptic usage in reducing infection rates.Methods:A systematic electronic search was performed on the PreMEDLINE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (Cochrane) databases from inception to April 2017. Reference search was performed manually through Scopus. Results of the searches were independently screened by 2 reviewers (A.F. and P.H.). Studies involving an implant or tissue expander, with appropriate controls were included. Meta-analyses were performed where possible and data summarized when not.Results:Three retrospective cohort studies were found to fit the review requirements. No randomized control trials were found. These studies covered a period of 1996–2010 for a total of 3,768 women undergoing augmentative surgery. The usage of antibiotics in pocket washout or implant immersion resulted in lower infection rates (RR = 0.52; P = 0.004; 95% CI = 0.34–0.81).Conclusions:There is a clinical benefit in using antibiotics for breast pocket irrigation and implant immersion. However, the quality of the evidence obtained in this review is low; hence, we recommend a randomized control trial for a higher level of evidence on this important issue.

Surgical Breast Pocket Irrigation With Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl): An In Vivo Evaluation of Pocket Protein Content and Potential HOCl Antimicrobial Capacity.

Hypochlorous acid (HOCl) demonstrates rapid and broad antimicrobial activity against planktonic and biofilm phenotype bacteria in vitro. To identify the protein content present in breast pockets in vivo and calculate the estimated active concentration of HOCl, (PhaseOne, Integrated Healing Technologies, Franklin, TN) following HOCl-protein interactions. Fluid samples were collected prior to implant insertion in 18 consecutive patients, representing 36 pocket samples, with all cases being bilateral primary breast augmentations. Samples were evaluated by an independent CLIA approved laboratory for albumin and total protein concentration in g/dL. Results were compared to HOCl solution concentration and protein binding potential to determine availability of free HOCl. The mean tissue sample concentration (right and left breast) was 31.6 mg/dL which translates to 0.0001 mmol per 20 cc of interstitial fluid. Mean total protein levels (right and left breast) were 62.3 mg/dL or 0.000187 mmol per 20 cc interstitial fluid. Based upon potential stoichiometric neutralization of HOCl by proteins in either a 1:1 or 3:1 ratio, using 115 cc of HOCl solution (per breast) at a concentration of 250 ppm/mL or 0.025% HOCl or = 0.48 mmol HOCl/dL, there would be 2950 times the amount of active HOCl at a 1:1 reaction ratio, or 983 times more HOCl assuming a 3:1 reaction ratio. Based on the range of identified levels of protein in individual surgical pockets in the study, there is an estimated 242 to 12,500 times more HOCl molecules than protein at a 3:1 molar ratio of binding or reactive protein. n estimated range of 983-2950 times more HOCl molecules are present during irrigation with 230 cc of PhaseOne® (115 cc for each breast) than available protein. This supports the antimicrobial and anti-biofilm activity as described in previous in vitro studies when using PhaseOne® as part of pocket irrigation.