ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2020
Periprosthetic Fluid Analysis in the Diagnosis of Breast Implant Infections Using Cell Count and Differential.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathobiology of ESKAPE Biofilms in implant infections: current understanding and implications for future therapeutic strategies.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Study of Inflammatory and Infection Markers in Periprosthetic Fluid: Correlation with Blood Analysis in Retrospective and Prospective Studies.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- Commentary on "Periprosthetic Fluid Analysis in the Diagnosis of Breast Implant Infections Using Cell Count and Differential".Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the most devastating complications following implant-based breast reconstruction is periprosthetic infection. Making a prompt and accurate diagnosis has been a challenge as plastic surgeons are limited by nonspecific systemic markers of infection, clinical examination findings, or imaging modalities.
objectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate the use of periprosthetic fluid using cell count and differential as an aid in the diagnosis of infection.
methodsThis is a retrospective chart review. The authors selected patients who underwent breast reconstruction and had periprosthetic fluid analysis during the previous 10 years based on CPT 89051 (cell count and differential, body fluid). Only patients with clinical concerns for infection were included (cellulitis, fever, etc.); all others were excluded.
resultsA total of 54 samples were included in the study. Twenty-seven samples were associated with periprosthetic breast infections based on positive cultures or intraoperative findings consistent with infection. On fluid analysis, those with infection had a significantly higher neutrophil percentage (84.2% vs 19.3%,
conclusionsEarly and accurate diagnosis of periprosthetic breast infections can lead to earlier treatment and potentially improved the outcomes. Aspiration and analysis of periprosthetic fluid for neutrophil percentage can be a reliable method to guide clinical decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3:
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.