Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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. 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):532–539

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):325–329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):2127–2133

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):229–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Washer LL, Gutowski K (2012) Breast implant infections. Infect Dis Clin N Am 26(1):111–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1074–1084

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Courtiss EH, Goldwyn RM, Anastasi GW (1979) The fate of breast implants with infections around them. Plast Reconstr Surg 63(6):812–816

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Perras C (1965) The prevention and treatment of infections following breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 35:649–656

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Planas J, Carbonell A, Planas J (1995) Salvaging the exposed mammary prosthesis. Aesthet Plast Surg 19:535–540

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Azouz V, Mirhaidari S, Wagner DS (2018) Defining infection in breast reconstruction: a literature review. Ann Plast Surg 80(5):587–591

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1634–1644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1172–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1223–1230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Weber J Jr, Hentz RV (1986) Salvage of the exposed breast implant. Ann Plast Surg 16(2):106–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):447–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Basile AR, Basile F, Basile AV (2005) Late infection following breast augmentation with textured silicone gel-filled implants. Aesthet Surg J 25(3):249–254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasileios Vasilakis.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vasilakis, V., Yamin, F. & Reish, R.G. Surgeons’ Dilemma: Treatment of Implant-Associated Infection in the Cosmetic Breast Augmentation Patient. Aesth Plast Surg 43, 905–909 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01369-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01369-7

Keywords

Navigation