ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Concentration of Povidone-Iodine Pocket Irrigation in Implant-Based Breast Surgery: A Scoping Review.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- The Impact of Irrigating Solutions on the Tensile Strength of Silicone Breast Implants: A Comparative In Vitro Analysis for Intraoperative use.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn implant-based breast surgery, microbial contamination of implant surfaces predisposes complications such as overt periprosthetic infection and has been linked to capsular contracture (CC). Anti-microbial practices, including povidone-iodine (PVP-I) breast pocket irrigation, are routinely employed to minimise these risks. No standardised protocol for using this antiseptic exists, particularly concerning the ideal concentration. This review investigates how PVP-I concentration affects outcomes in these procedures while highlighting research gaps.
methodsUsing PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and PubMed databases from their inception to June 2024. Studies were screened using pre-determined criteria for inclusion. The methodological quality of relevant studies was assessed using the MINORS tool. Data regarding basic characteristics, PVP-I irrigation implementation, and outcomes (primarily periprosthetic infection and CC) were extracted for analysis.
resultsNine articles, primarily observational studies, and retrospective analyses were included. These mainly focused on breast augmentation with a few including reconstruction. There was considerable heterogeneity in surgical techniques, and reported PVP-I concentrations ranged from 4 to 20%. This was further confounded by frequent mixing of irrigation solution with antibiotics. Although infection and CC rates were frequently reported, most studies did not specify outcome data for patients receiving PVP-I irrigation.
conclusionsWhile PVP-I irrigation is extensively used in implant surgeries, the current evidence base is insufficient to determine the optimal concentration and application techniques. This review underscores the need for further detailed research to establish evidence-based guidelines for PVP-I use, aiming to improve patient care and surgical outcomes in breast surgery. 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
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.