ArticleCancers2024
A Multi-Center Retrospective Observational Analysis of Three-Year Experience of Our Protocol for Prevention and Monitoring of Surgical Site Infections in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the rise in the mastectomy rate, the number of patients who choose to undergo postmastectomy reconstruction has been increasing, and implant-based procedures are the most performed methods for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Among the possible complications, the most feared is the loss of reconstruction. It can be related to several reasons, but one of the most common is infection of the implant, which can lead to prolonged antibiotic treatment, undesired additional surgical procedures, increased incidence of capsular contracture, and unsatisfactory aesthetics results, with a huge psychological impact on patients.
aimsThe primary intent of this study is to analyze the status of infection rates at our institution and evaluate the effectiveness of our prevention protocol since its introduction. Secondly, we compared data of the surgical site infections (SSIs) after implant-based breast reconstruction at Trieste Hospital, where the protocol has been employed since 2020, and in another center, where plastic surgeons of our team are involved, with different prevention procedures. METHODS AND
resultsWe enrolled 396 female patients, who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction, using definitive mammary implants or breast tissue expanders, with or without ADM (acellular dermal matrix), both for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1/2 patients. Patients treated at the Hospital of Trieste, with the use of the prevention protocol, were considered the experimental group (group 1), while patients treated in Gorizia by the same breast team with standardized best-practice rules, but without the use of the prevention protocol, were considered the control group (group 2). Infected patients were 5 in the first group (1.7%) and 8 in the second one (7.9%), with a global infection rate of 3.2%.
conclusionAfter the introduction of our prevention protocol, we faced a lower incidence of infection after breast surgery with implants or tissue expanders.
Indexed as
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.