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. (22nd July 2021)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- 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. (22nd July 2021)
- Main Title:
- 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
- Authors:
- Nguyen, Lyly
Afshari, Ashkan
Green, Japjit
Joseph, Jeremy
Yao, Jun
Perdikis, Galen
Higdon, Kent K - Abstract:
- Abstract: Background: Post-mastectomy pocket irrigation solution choice is debated and primarily surgeon dependent. We compare triple antibiotic solution (TAS) with 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG). Objectives: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: This study does notAbstract: Background: Post-mastectomy pocket irrigation solution choice is debated and primarily surgeon dependent. We compare triple antibiotic solution (TAS) with 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG). Objectives: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. Level of Evidence: 2: … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Aesthetic surgery journal. Volume 41:Number 11(2021)
- Journal:
- Aesthetic surgery journal
- Issue:
- Volume 41:Number 11(2021)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 41, Issue 11 (2021)
- Year:
- 2021
- Volume:
- 41
- Issue:
- 11
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2021-0041-0011-0000
- Page Start:
- NP1521
- Page End:
- NP1528
- Publication Date:
- 2021-07-22
- Subjects:
- Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals
617.95 - Journal URLs:
- http://asj.oxfordjournals.org/content/ ↗
http://aes.sagepub.com/content/by/year ↗
http://www.mosby.com/aesthetic ↗
http://online.sagepub.com/ ↗
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1090820X ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1093/asj/sjab290 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1090-820X
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 0730.384000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 25006.xml