ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Broad evidence supports the use of antiseptic pocket rinse in breast implant surgery to minimize the risk of capsular contracture or other complications. However, there is limited consensus or standardization of antiseptic rinse in practice. OBJECTIVES: In this preliminary study, we sought to determine contemporary trends in antiseptic rinse use in primary breast implant surgery based on Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) data, and whether these trends align with the suggestions of the 14-point plan.2 This further served as a feasibility study for subsequent comparison of antiseptic rinse effects on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Institutional ethics approval was obtained and national ABDR data for primary breast implant surgery from 2015-2020 was analysed for the use, and type, of antiseptic rinse. The surgeon-reported data was homogenized for terminology and categorized into major trends, and the literature reviewed. RESULTS: We analysed data for 37,143 patients, totalling 73,935 primary implants. Antiseptic rinse included Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I) in 35,859 (48.5%), no antiseptic use in 24,216 (32.8%), other concentrations of PVP-I in 4,200 (5.7%), and 'Betadine® triple antibiotic'1 in 1,831 implants (2.5%). Multiple other antiseptic permutations were noted in 7,004 implants (9.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority (56.7%) of Australian practitioners utilise previously-described antiseptic pocket irrigation solutions which align with the 14-point plan. A third (32.8%), however, do not record any antiseptic pocket irrigation use. These findings will permit a subsequent (ongoing) study of outcomes comparing PVP-I to no antiseptic pocket rinse that will likely constitute the largest study of its kind.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The association between breast implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) has been confirmed. Implant-related risk has been difficult to estimate to date due to incomplete datasets. METHODS: All cases in Australia and New Zealand were identified and analyzed. Textured implants reported in this group were subjected to surface area analysis. Sales data from three leading breast implant manufacturers (i.e., Mentor, Allergan, and Silimed) dating back to 1999 were secured to estimate implant-specific risk. RESULTS: Fifty-five cases of breast implant-associated ALCL were diagnosed in Australia and New Zealand between 2007 and 2016. The mean age of patients was 47.1 years and the mean time of implant exposure was 7.46 years. There were four deaths in the series related to mass and/or metastatic presentation. All patients were exposed to textured implants. Surface area analysis confirmed that higher surface area was associated with 64 of the 75 implants used (85.3 percent). Biocell salt loss textured (Allergan, Inamed, and McGhan) implants accounted for 58.7 percent of the implants used in this series. Comparative analysis showed the risk of developing breast implant-associated ALCL to be 14.11 times higher with Biocell textured implants and 10.84 higher with polyurethane (Silimed) textured implants compared with Siltex textured implants. CONCLUSIONS: This study has calculated implant-specific risk of breast implant-associated ALCL. Higher-surface-area textured implants have been shown to significantly increase the risk of breast implant-associated ALCL in Australia and New Zealand. The authors present a unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
