ArticleEplasty2022
Is Iatrogenic Implant Contamination Preventable Using a 16-Step No-Touch Protocol?
Article in Eplasty, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental, Nutritional, and Therapeutic Factors That Affect Surgical Wound Healing: A Narrative Review of Experimental Findings From the Last 5 Years.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Invited Discussion on: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Breast Lift Algorithm for the Treatment of Breast Implant Illness Requiring Implant Removal.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intraoperative contamination of the surgical field during aesthetic breast augmentation may lead to implant infection with devastating consequences. This study covers a period of 30 years and is divided into 2 phases: a retrospective phase from 1992-2004 when a standard approach was used and a prospective phase from 2004-2022 when a no-touch approach was implemented to avoid contamination. Methods: Patients in the standard and no-touch groups underwent aesthetic breast augmentation by the same senior surgeon (FDP) in the same outpatient surgical facility during the 30-year period of the study. Patients are divided into 2 groups: from 1992-2004 and from the implementation of the no-touch protocol in 2004-2022. Results: Patients who underwent breast augmentation using the no-touch approach developed no infections, whereas the standard group had an infection rate of 3.54% ( Conclusions: The no-touch approach as described in this article was effective in reducing implant infection rate when performing aesthetic breast augmentation by 1 surgeon at 1 surgical center during an 18-year observation period. Multicenter prospective cooperative studies are necessary to validate perioperative iatrogenic contamination as the cause of implant infection and to explore optimal approaches that could eliminate implant contamination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36160667PMC9490878What 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.