ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Does the Omission of Cefazolin in Irrigation Solution Affect Outcomes in Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction?
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Irrigation Solutions in Wound Care and Breast Surgery: Evidence-Based Applications, Regulatory Considerations, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe widely used triple-antibiotics irrigation solution, comprising cefazolin, gentamycin, and povidone-iodine solution, has been employed for preventing infection and capsular contracture in implant-based breast reconstruction. However, potential overlapping in the coverage of such antimicrobial effects and the recent emergence of cefazolin-resistant gram-positive bacteria has prompted concerns regarding the efficacy of routine use of cefazolin in irrigation solutions. This study aims to evaluate clinical safety of omitting cefazolin from the traditional triple-antibiotic irrigation solution.
methodsPatients who underwent immediate prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction between September 2020 and April 2022 were reviewed. They were divided into two groups: cases using the traditional triple-antibiotics for the former third and those using dual-antibiotics (omitting cefazolin) for the latter. Development of postoperative complications were compared by the type of irrigation solution and its independent associations with the adverse outcomes were evaluated.
resultsIn total, 445 cases (126 using triple- and 319 using dual-regimen solution) were analyzed with a mean follow-up period of 12 months. The two groups had generally similar baseline characteristics. Overall complications developed in 126 cases (28.3%), including 12 (2.7%) of infection and 32 (7.2%) of capsular contracture. The complication profiles did not differ between the groups. Multivariable analyses exhibited that the type of irrigation solution was not associated with the development of overall and any kind of complication including infection and capsular contracture.
conclusionOmission of cefazolin from the irrigation solution may not elevate the risks of infection and capsular contracture in prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Further long-term studies would be warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
39623231What 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.