Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20190908›Full record

ArticleThe Canadian journal of plastic surgery = Journal canadien de chirurgie plastique2009

Decreasing expander breast infection: A new drain care protocol.

John D Murray, Eric T Elwood, Glyn E Jones, Rebecca Barrick, Jack Feng

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Canadian journal of plastic surgery = Journal canadien de chirurgie plastique, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03784859 (Tissue Expansion in Breast Reconstruction Without Drains), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03784859 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Tissue Expansion in Breast Reconstruction Without Drains: A Study Using a Tissue Expander That Collects Periprosthetic Fluid

TypeobservationalSponsorCedars-Sinai Medical CenterRan2019 to 2020Enrolled5ConditionsBreast Cancer, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome, Breast Implant, ComplicationsArmsInsertion of Tissue Expander with Fluid Reservoir
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Predictive Factors for Drainage Volume after Expander-based Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2016
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John D MurrayDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria;
Eric T Elwood
Glyn E Jones
Rebecca Barrick
Jack Feng
Illinois College · USBradley University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk factors for expander reconstruction infection are well known. However, drain use as a risk factor for the development of infection is unclear.

objectiveTo review a simple method for drain use to help reduce rates of infection in expander breast reconstruction.

methodsTwo hundred consecutive single-surgeon (JDM) immediate first-stage expander breast reconstructions were retrospectively reviewed. The records were reviewed for history and physical examination, intra-operative technique, perioperative management, adjuvant therapy, and outcome with respect to expander infection necessitating premature explantation within the first eight weeks. Infection was defined on clinical basis, with or without culture positivity. All expanders (Mentor, USA) were the same model (textured, port-integrated and biodimensional). Two consecutive series of reconstructions were then created. The first series included 177 reconstructions while the second series included 23 reconstructions. Unlike the first series, the second series introduced a protocol in which all reconstructions received mupirocin 2% cream to the drain sites and all drains were removed at the end of the first week. Additionally, in the second series, all expanders were secluded from direct in vivo contact with the closed suction drain either by the use of an intervening Alloderm sling (LifeCell Corporation, USA, 15 of 23 breasts) or by subdermally tunnelling the drain superficial to an adequate fatty subcutaneous layer (eight of 23 breasts).

resultsPatients who developed infection in the first series and all patients in the second series shared statistically the same level of aggregate risk factors (P=0.531). The infection rate (5.65%, 10 infections in 177 breasts) in the first series was statistically greater than in the second series (0%, 0 in 23 breasts, P=0.001).

conclusionsThe present study found that percutaneous closed suction drains do serve as an increased risk for expander infection. However, early results indicate that in vivo protection of the expander with Alloderm or subdermal tunnelling, topical antibiotic ointment use and early drain removal may significantly reduce expander infection.

Indexed as

AdultAllodermBreast expanderBreast implantsBreast neoplasmsBreast reconstructionClosed suction drainsCombined modality therapyDrainsFemaleHumansInfectionMammaplastyMastectomyMupirocinTissue expansion devices

Identifiers

PMID20190908
PMCPMC2705308
OpenAlexW1591142198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.