Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35079237›Full record

ArticleContemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland)2021

Microbiology of breast tissue expanders.

Maja Molska, Mateusz Wichtowski, Dawid Murawa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Maja MolskaClinic of Surgical Oncology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.
Mateusz WichtowskiClinic of Surgical Oncology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.
Dawid MurawaClinic of Surgical Oncology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInfection is one of the most common complications of breast reconstruction. The presence of bacterial biofilm on the implant surface does not always manifest itself clinically as an infection. Still little is known about the factors that trigger the transition from a normal to a pathological state. The aim of study: To examine a specific profile of microorganisms associated with a tissue expander, and to ascertain whether the collection of intraoperative bacteriological swabs constitutes a significant predictive factor. Material and methods: A 2-centre review of outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent immediate 2-stage expander-implant breast reconstruction between June 2020 and September 2021 was conducted. During this period, 68 replacements of expanders with implants from 56 women were performed. A bacteriological swab was taken from each expander compartment, and microbiological culture was performed. Patients' characteristics were taken into consideration.

resultsTissue expanders were implanted from 2 to 26 months. Seven patients had an emergency expander removed due to infection or damage to the device. Out of all 56 patients evaluated, 47 had a negative and 9 had a positive culture, 1 in both breasts. The results did not correlate closely with the clinical status.

conclusionsBacteria colonize both clinically normal and infected expanders. It is difficult to determine the specific flora associated with the pocket after expander-based reconstruction, and taking a bacteriological swab each time as a standard does not influence the success of treatment.

Indexed as

breast cancerexpandermicrobiologyreconstruction

Identifiers

PMID35079237
PMCPMC8768049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.