Unnecessary Explantation of IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Saline Breast Implants Prompted byRadiologic Misdiagnosis of Rupture.

ABSTRACT: The unique dual-lumen and baffle design of the IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Saline breast implant gives it specific advantages over both silicone gel-filled and the original saline-filled implants. This internal baffle structure also gives it an appearance on various radiologic imaging studies that may be misinterpreted as a rupture because of similarities to the well-known radiologic appearance of a ruptured silicone gel implant. Patients may present with various misinterpreted imaging studies, highlighting the need for plastic surgeons and radiologists to be familiar with the normal appearance of the intact IDEAL IMPLANT and be able to distinguish it from a ruptured IDEAL IMPLANT. The radiology findings must be correlated with the clinical findings, or an intact IDEAL IMPLANT misdiagnosed as ruptured, may cause unnecessary patient worry, and may prompt unnecessary surgery for removal or replacement.

Breast Reduction with Implants or Augmentation Reduction: Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Single-Centre Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Background and Objectives: The correction of breast hypertrophy and ptosis with implant placement has always posed a challenge for plastic surgeons. Various methods have been devised, yielding conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to describe our surgical technique of breast reduction with silicone implants, present the safety profile of the procedure, and report patient-reported outcomes. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was performed on our case series of cosmetic breast surgery performed by the senior author between October 2020 and November 2023. Only patients who had over 300 g of breast tissue removed were included. The surgery and demographic characteristics were recorded. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire about satisfaction with their breasts pre-operatively and after the surgery. Results: Over 745 cases were performed, and 25 were included in the analysis. In total, 78.3% of the patients presented with a Grade 3 ptosis. The mean implant size was 352.39 cc (range 300-455 cc). The breast tissue removed ranged from 312 to 657 g. The mean follow-up was 14.17 months. Only one case required revision surgery after developing capsular contracture and a waterfall deformity. Patients reported a statistically significant improvement across all domains of the questionnaire (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Breast reduction plus implants is a safe and effective alternative for patients with large ptotic breasts who wish to attain a full upper pole. It carries a similar risk profile to augmentation mastopexy and maintains its functional benefits in alleviating back, neck, and shoulder pain.

Augmentation mastopexy using the "double inner bra technique" (DIB) in post-bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Augmentation mastopexy has a 20-fold higher complication rate than primary augmentation. Performing augmentation mastopexy in post-bariatric patients poses an additional challenge owing to the reduced quality of the soft skin tissue. Therefore, it is technically complex and also fraught with complications. Implant dislocation, recurrent ptosis, wound healing problems with exposed implants, and the threat of implant loss are complications that must be prevented. METHODS: We present a case series study on our technique for stabilizing breast implants using the double inner bra technique (DIB) in which a laterobasal myofascial flap and an inferiorly based dermoglandular flap form a double inner bra for implant stabilization and protection. RESULTS: Thirty-seven cases were operated on using this technique from December 2020 to June 2023. No hematomas (0%), seromas (0%), infections (0%), and implant losses (0%) were recorded. Moreover, none of the patients had implant malposition (0%). With regard to recurrent ptosis mammae or waterfall deformity, 7 cases (2.6%) showed early ptosis within the first 3 months, and the number of ptosis decreased over time. Furthermore, 5 (1.81%) patients showed ptosis mammae after 6-12 months. Implant defect or rupture has not yet occurred (0%). CONCLUSION: The DIB is an easy-to-learn and versatile technique. It has low complication rates and can be used to achieve esthetically satisfactory mid- to long-term results.

Outcomes after elevation of serratus anterior fascia flap versus serratus muscle flap in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following mastectomy: a prospective study.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain between SF flap and serratus anterior muscle (SM) in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study that included 53 women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction from January 2020 to March 2021. Twenty-nine patients (54.7%) had SF elevation, and 24 patients (45.3%) underwent SM elevation. We evaluated patient-reported early postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Also, it was reported that all surgical complications in the first month and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were measured with the BRECON 23 questionnaire. Results: The serratus fascia group used implants with larger volumes, 407.6 ± 98.9 cc (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the fascial and muscular groups regarding the postoperative pain score reported by the patients (2 versus 3; p = 0.30). Also, there was no difference between the groups regarding early surgical complications and PROs after breast reconstruction. Conclusion: The use of SF seems to cause less morbidity, which makes the technique an alternative to be considered in breast reconstruction. Although there was no statistical difference in postoperative pain scores between the fascia and serratus muscle groups.

Association of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With Postoperative Outcomes in Immediate Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by total mastectomy and immediate reconstruction has become an important strategy in the treatment of breast cancer. Although the safety of subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with NACT has been extensively evaluated, the safety in prepectoral reconstruction has not been clearly elucidated. We aimed to evaluate the association of NACT with immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent total mastectomy and immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction between May and December 2021 was conducted. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: those receiving NACT and those not receiving it. Postoperative complication rates were compared between the 2 groups. The independent association between NACT and the complication profiles was evaluated. Propensity score matching was also conducted. RESULTS: We analyzed 343 cases, including 85 who received NACT treatment and 258 who did not. Compared with the non-NACT group, the NACT group was younger, had a higher body mass index, and a higher rate of adjuvant radiotherapy. There were no differences in the rates of overall complications or type of complication between the 2 groups. In the multivariable logistic analyses, NACT did not show a significant association with the development of adverse outcomes. Similar results were observed in propensity score matching analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that receiving NACT may not have a significant detrimental effect on the postoperative outcomes of immediate prepectoral prosthetic reconstructions. Conducting prepectoral implant-based reconstruction in the setting of NACT might be safe and provide acceptable outcomes.

Outcomes of a same day discharge protocol in patients undergoing mastectomy and implant reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Finite hospital resources has required a closer look at resource allocation. This has prompted a shift toward same day surgeries and a focus on reducing hospital readmissions. Following the institution of a same day discharge protocol for mastectomy and mastectomy with immediate reconstruction, we sought to assess differences in the length of stay and readmission rates. METHODS: This retrospective review evaluates all cases of mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction performed at a single high-volume center between June 2019 and March 2021. Average length of stay, 30-day readmission rates, Anesthesia Society Assessment class, and type of immediate reconstruction were assessed. Autologous reconstructions were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 413 patients underwent mastectomy with or without reconstruction (n = 148 pre protocol and n = 265 during protocol) between June 2019 and March 2021. Of those 413 patients, 180 underwent reconstruction (n = 62 pre protocol and n = 118 during protocol). The average length of stay after mastectomy following the implementation of the same day discharge protocol was decreased at 0.6 days (n = 265) compared to preimplementation at 1.02 days (n = 148), p < 0.001. The 30-day readmission rate was not significant between the groups, p = 0.13. A total of 180 patients underwent immediate reconstruction after mastectomy. The average length of stay after mastectomy with immediate reconstruction following implementation of the same day discharge protocol was shorter than preimplementation at 1.05 days preimplementation (n = 62) versus 0.58 days following implementation (n = 118), p < 0.001; this finding was significant for both prepectoral and subpectoral implants, p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission rates between the groups with immediate reconstruction, p = 0.34. CONCLUSION: Same day discharge for mastectomy with reconstruction is as safe as the more widely recognized same day discharge practice for patients with mastectomy alone.

The influence of a previous implant-based breast reconstruction on postoperative sensation of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap.

BACKGROUND: Implants and DIEP flaps have different outcomes regarding postoperative breast sensation. When compared to the preoperative healthy breast, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) negatively influences postoperative breast sensation. However, it is currently unknown whether a prior IBBR also influences postoperative sensation of a replacing DIEP flap. The goal of this cohort study is to evaluate the influence of an IBBR on the postoperative sensation of a replacing DIEP flap. METHODS: Women were included if they received a DIEP flap reconstruction after mastectomy, with or without prior tissue expander (TE) and/or definitive breast implant. Sensation was measured at four intervals in 9 areas of the breast with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: T0 (preoperative, implant/no reconstruction), T1 (2-7 months postoperative, DIEP), T2 (± 12 months postoperative, DIEP), Tmax (maximum follow-up, DIEP). Linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the relationship between an implant/TE prior to the DIEP flap and recovery of breast sensation. RESULTS: 142 women comprising 206 breasts were included. 48 (23.3%) breasts did, and 158 (76.7%) breasts did not have a TE/IBBR prior to their DIEP. No statistically significant or clinically relevant relationships were found between a prior implant/TE and recovery of DIEP flap breast sensation for the flap skin, native skin, or total breast skin at T1, T2, or Tmax. There were also no relationships found after adjustment for the confounders radiation therapy, BMI, diabetes, age, flap weight, follow-up, and nerve coaptation. CONCLUSIONS: An implant/TE prior to a DIEP flap does not influence the recovery of postoperative breast sensation of the DIEP flap.

Patients' Satisfaction After Breast Reconstruction Surgery Using Autologous versus Implants: A Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is a common disease that affects women globally and causes physical and emotional challenges. Breast reconstructive surgery aims to restore the shape of the breast after a mastectomy. Two common approaches used today are tissue-based or autologous and implant-based reconstruction. Autologous breast reconstruction has the advantage of being more affordable, but the resulting shape is less attractive. At the same time, the implant technique produces a more pleasing shape at a more expensive cost. OBJECTIVE: To compare the level of patients' satisfaction after breast reconstruction using the implant technique with the autologous technique using the Breast-Q questionnaire. METHODS: This research was a meta-analytic study to compare patients' satisfaction levels with breast reconstruction using the autologous technique compared with the implant technique. We searched several research articles from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2014 to 2023. Then, we conducted an analysis using Revman 5.4. The results of the study were presented in a forest plot diagram. RESULTS: From the search results, there were 3980 studies. Then, exclusion and inclusion were carried out, and the results obtained were 16 research articles. Of the 16 studies, analysis was then carried out, and the results obtained were satisfaction in breast patients with a sample size of 7284. The standard result of the mean difference was 0.55 (95% CI 0.41-0.68) p < 0.00001. Satisfaction with the reconstruction results with a sample size of 2935. The standard result of the mean difference was 0.48 (95% CI 0.28-0.69) p < 0.00001. Patients' sexual satisfaction with a sample size of 7149. The standard result of the mean difference was 0.27 (95% CI 0.17-0.37) p < 0.00001. Patients' satisfaction with nipple shapes with a sample of 426. The standard result of the mean difference was 0.22 (95% CI -0.00-0.44) p = 0.06. Patients' satisfaction with plastic surgeons with a sample size of 272. The standard result of the mean difference was 0.52 (95% CI 0.25-0.80) p= 0.0002. CONCLUSION: The autologous breast reconstruction technique is better than the implant-based reconstruction technique in terms of patient satisfaction with the breast, reconstruction outcome, sexual satisfaction, nipple shapes, and plastic surgeons based on the Breast-Q questionnaire. The findings of this comprehensive study indicate that breast cancer survivors who choose autologous reconstruction have higher levels of satisfaction across multiple domains than those who decide implant-based reconstruction.

Impact of post-operative infection on revision procedures in breast reconstruction: A marketscan database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Esthetic complications, such as capsular contracture and soft-tissue contour defects, hinder the desired outcomes of breast reconstruction. As subclinical infection is a prevailing theory behind capsular contracture, we investigated the effects of post-operative infections on these issues and revision procedures. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database study (2007-2021) on breast reconstruction patients from the MarketScan® Databases. Esthetic complications were defined by their associated revision procedures and queried via CPT codes. Severe capsular contracture (Grade 3-4) was defined as requiring capsulotomy or capsulectomy with implant removal or replacement. Moderate and severe soft-tissue defects were determined by the need for fat grafting or breast revision, respectively. Generalized linear models were used, adjusting for comorbidities and surgical factors (p < 0.05). RESULTS: We analyzed the data on 62,510 eligible patients. Post-operative infections increased the odds of capsulotomy (OR 1.59, p < 0.001) and capsulectomy (OR 2.30, p < 0.001). They also raised the odds of breast revision for severe soft-tissue defects (OR 1.21, p < 0.001). There was no significant association between infections and fat grafting for moderate defects. Patients who had post-operative infections were also more likely to experience another infection after fat grafting (OR 3.39, p = 0.0018). In two-stage reconstruction, infection after tissue expander placement was associated with greater odds of infection after implant placement. CONCLUSION: Post-operative infections increase the likelihood of developing severe soft-tissue defects and capsular contracture requiring surgical revision. Our data reinforce the role of infections in the pathophysiology of capsular contracture. Additionally, infections elevate the risk of subsequent infections after fat grafting for moderate defects, further increasing patient morbidity.

The Impact of Radiation on Nipple Symmetry After Bilateral Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Implant-Based Reconstruction: An Objective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Radiation therapy can adversely affect outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction, potentially complicating procedures like nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), which is increasingly popular in breast cancer management. This study aims to evaluate the impact of radiation on nipple symmetry in patients undergoing bilateral NSM with implant-based reconstruction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using data from an Emory University review board-approved database. This encompassed bilateral NSMs coupled with immediate implant-based reconstructions. The BCCT.core software was employed to objectively measure nipple asymmetry preoperatively and postoperatively. Metrics, such as Breast Retraction Assessment values, upper nipple retraction, lower breast contour, and nipple to midline (NML) discrepancies were quantified. The study included 80 patients with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up; among them, 15 received radiation therapy (RT) while 65 did not. RESULTS: The reconstructions were divided into tissue expander, used in 39 cases (48.8%), and direct-to-implant (DTI), employed in 41 cases (51.2%). The DTIs were further categorized based on the location of the implant: 22 subpectoral and 19 prepectoral. Radiation was applied to 15 breasts, distributed among prepectoral DTI (4), subpectoral DTI (6), and tissue expander (5). Breast Retraction Assessment scores significantly differed between the nonirradiated and irradiated groups (1.49 vs 2.64, P < 0.0004). Nipple to midline differences and Upper Nipple Retraction also significantly varied postradiation, especially when comparing subpectoral and prepectoral implant placements. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy has a detrimental effect on nipple symmetry after bilateral NSM and implant-based reconstruction, with variations seen regardless of the implant's placement or the reconstructive technique utilized. Specifically, subpectoral reconstructions irradiated were prone to lateral nipple displacement, likely related to radiation-induced pectoralis muscle changes, while prepectoral irradiated reconstructions tended to have increased vertical displacement. These insights are crucial for patient education and surgical planning in the context of radiation and breast reconstruction.

Current Global Trends in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most frequently performed procedure for breast reconstruction following mastectomy, which involves the surgical placement of breast implants. The approach to breast reconstruction can be divided into two main categories, namely prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR), based on the implant plan and placement technique. In recent years, there has been a significant surge in the popularity of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, where the implants are positioned above the chest muscle, as opposed to beneath it in the subpectoral approach. However, despite this growing preference, there is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the national trends in the utilization of this technique, thus necessitating further investigation. This narrative review aims to ascertain the current global patterns linked to prepectoral breast reconstruction and elucidate the considerations surrounding patient and implant selection, reconstructive techniques, the utilization of meshes in prepectoral reconstruction, the ensuing outcomes and complications, the ramifications of radiotherapy, and the potential advantages of integrating fat infiltration into the implementation of this technique in breast reconstruction with a focus on published papers in last five years. Conclusion: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has emerged as an appropriate surgical option for individuals seeking breast reconstruction. This development can be attributed to the recent progress made in implant technology, which has significantly enhanced the outcomes of this procedure. Additionally, advancements in mastectomy techniques, autologous fat grafting, and the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have also played a vital role in improving the aesthetic results of prepectoral breast reconstruction. As a result, the significance and effectiveness of this technique in the field of breast reconstruction have been firmly established, making it an essential component of the overall armamentarium available to plastic surgeons for breast reconstruction purposes.

In hospital outcomes of autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbid condition that can be associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, the outcome profile of patients with COPD after breast reconstruction has yet to be established. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the postoperative outcomes in patients with COPD who underwent autologous (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). METHODS: National Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent ABR or IBR from Q4 2015 to 2020. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare inhospital outcomes between COPD and non-COPD patients while adjusting for demographics, primary payer status, hospital characteristics, and comorbidities. RESULTS: There were 1288 (9.92%) COPD and 11,696 non-COPD patients who underwent ABR. Meanwhile, 1742 (9.70%) COPD and 16,221 non-COPD patients underwent IBR. In both ABR and IBR, patients with COPD had higher rates of seroma (ABR, aOR = 1.863, 95% CI = 1.022-3.397, and p = 0.04; IBR, aOR = 1.524, 95% CI = 1.014-2.291, and p = 0.04), infection (ABR, aOR = 1.863, 95% CI = 1.022-3.397, and p = 0.04; IBR, aOR = 1.956, 95% CI = 1.205-3.176, and p = 0.01), and prolonged LOS (p < 0.01). Specifically, patients with COPD in ABR had higher risks of respiratory complications (aOR = 1.991, 95% CI = 1.291-3.071, and p < 0.01) and incurred higher total hospital charges (p < 0.01). Meanwhile, patients with COPD undergoing IBR had elevated risks of renal complications (aOR = 3.421, 95% CI = 2.108-5.55, and p < 0.01), deep wound complications (aOR = 3.191, 95% CI = 1.423-7.153, and p < 0.01), and a higher rate of transfers out (aOR = 1.815, 95% CI = 1.081-3.05, and p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: COPD is an independent risk factor associated with distinct adverse outcomes in ABR and IBR. These findings can be valuable for preoperative risk stratification, determining surgical candidacy, and planning postoperative management in patients with COPD.

Effectiveness of SCAR-Q for assessment of incisional SCAR after implant-based reconstruction in breast cancer patients: Can it be a tool for incision selection?

Incisional scarring is a factor of cosmetic appearance evaluated after breast reconstruction, along with the shape, position, and size of the breast. This study aimed to examine the effect of the incision scar location on patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction. Using the Japanese version of the SCAR-Q, we assessed the scar appearance, symptoms and psychosocial effects. Plastic surgeons performed assessments using the Manchester Scar Scale. The patients were divided into two groups: those with scars on the margins of the breast (MB group) and those with scars in the breast area (IB group). The results revealed that patients in the MB group reported significantly higher satisfaction with the scar appearance and psychological impact than those in the IB group. However, assessments using the Manchester Scar Scale did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of scar satisfaction after breast reconstruction. Patients tend to prefer and have higher satisfaction with scars along the breast margin, which offers valuable insights into surgical decisions. Further studies with larger and more diverse sample sizes are required for validation.

Impact of polyurethane versus acellular dermal matrix coating on prepectoral reconstruction outcomes: Interface does matter.

BACKGROUND: Interfaces continue to be used in prepectoral breast reconstruction to refine breast appearance, but more clinical data are required to assess their effectiveness. This study compares the rates of capsular contracture, breast esthetics, and patient satisfaction between two commonly used interface materials, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and polyurethane (PU) foam. METHODS: A cross-sectional assessment was conducted on all patients who underwent prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction with an interface material between June 2018 and June 2022. We compared capsular contracture rates (assessed in-person), esthetic outcomes (evaluated by a three-member panel using a specially designed scale), and patient satisfaction (measured using the Breast-Q questionnaire) among the members of the interface groups. RESULTS: Among the 79 reconstructed breasts (20 bilateral cases), 35 were reconstructed using ADM and 44 using PU implants. The ADM group had a significantly higher frequency of Baker III/IV capsular contracture compared with the PU group (14.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.014) and lower ratings from the panel in terms of capsular contracture (median 3.7 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001). PU reconstructions scored worse in implant visibility (median 2.3 vs. 3.3, p < 0.001) and rippling (median 3.0 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001). However, after appropriate adjustment for confounders, no significant differences in overall appearance and patient satisfaction were found. CONCLUSIONS: ADM reconstructions are prone to capsular contracture with all their related esthetic issues, but PU implants have certain cosmetic flaws, such as implant visibility and malposition. Since each technique has its own limitations, neither the experienced surgeons nor patients exhibited a clear preference for either approach.

Technical Refinements and Outcomes Assessment in Prepectoral Pocket Conversion After Postmastectomy Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Several studies show how submuscular breast reconstruction is linked to animation deformity, shoulder dysfunction, and increased postoperative chest pain, when compared to prepectoral breast reconstruction. In solving all these life-impairing side effects, prepectoral implant pocket conversion has shown encouraging results. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to propose a refinement of the prepectoral implant pocket conversion applied to previously irradiated patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on 42 patients who underwent previous nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate submuscular reconstruction, followed by radiotherapy. We performed fat grafting sessions as regenerative pretreatment. Six months after the last fat graft, we performed the conversion, with prepectoral placement of micropolyurethane foam-coated implants. We investigated the preconversion and postconversion differences in upper limb range of motion, Upper Extremity Functional Index, and patient satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest. RESULTS: We reported a resolution of animation deformity in 100% of cases. The range of motion and the Upper Extremity Functional Index scores were statistically improved after prepectoral implant pocket conversion. BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest were also improved. CONCLUSIONS: The refined prepectoral implant pocket conversion is a reliable technique for solving animation deformity and improving quality of life in patients previously treated with submuscular reconstruction and radiotherapy.

The Effect of 3-Dimensional-Printed Sequential Dual Drug-Releasing Patch on the Capsule Formation Around the Silicone Implant in a Rat Model.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction is associated with increased risk of early infection and late-stage capsular contracture. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the feasibility of a dual drug-releasing patch that enabled the controlled delivery of antibiotics and immunosuppressants in a temporally and spatially appropriate manner to the implant site. METHODS: The efficacy of a dual drug-releasing patch, which was 3-dimensional-printed (3D-printed) with tissue-derived biomaterial ink, was evaluated in rats with silicone implants. The groups included implant only (n = 10); implant plus bacterial inoculation (n = 14); implant, bacterial inoculation, and patch loaded with gentamycin placed on the ventral side of the implant (n = 10), and implant, bacterial inoculation, and patch loaded with gentamycin and triamcinolone acetonide (n = 9). Histologic and immunohistochemical analyses were performed 8 weeks after implantation. RESULTS: The 2 drugs were sequentially released from the dual drug-releasing patch and exhibited different release profiles. Compared to the animals with bacterial inoculation, those with the antibiotic-only and the dual drug-releasing patch exhibited thinner capsules and lower myofibroblast activity and inflammation, indicating better tissue integration and less foreign body response. These effects were more pronounced with the dual drug-releasing patch than with the antibiotic-only patch. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-printed dual drug-releasing patch effectively reduced inflammation and capsule formation in a rat model of silicone breast reconstruction. The beneficial effect of the dual drug-releasing patch was better than that of the antibiotic-only patch, indicating its therapeutic potential as a novel approach to preventing capsular contracture while reducing concerns of systemic side effects.