ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Ensuring Equal Implantation Conditions on Both Sides During Breast Augmentation: Effective Decontamination of Implantation Funnels.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of mitigation strategies to decrease contamination during breast implant surgery has advanced over the years, and the utility of implantation funnels has been recently validated by several studies. However, the additional cost of using separate funnels for each breast has led surgeons to use the same funnel on both sides, which increases the risk of microbial contamination and complications such as capsular contracture in the second breast.
methodsThis prospective study included ten consecutive patients undergoing primary breast augmentation. The sterility of the funnels was initially confirmed by microbiological analysis of samples taken from the tip of the funnel immediately after opening. After implantation in the right breast, a second sample set was taken from the funnel. The funnel was then decontaminated using a 2% chlorhexidine with 70% isopropyl alcohol solution, air-dried, and a third sample from the tip was taken. The decontaminated funnel was then used for the left breast implantation. These three samples were analyzed for microbial contamination.
resultsInitial funnel samples were found to be sterile, meeting the manufacturer's sterility standards. However, after the initial use, all samples were contaminated with microorganisms (Staphylococcus epidermidis in seven cases and Cutibacterium acnes in three cases). Following chlorhexidine treatment, all samples were found sterile, demonstrating the effectiveness of the decontamination process.
conclusionReusing a single funnel for both breast implants increases the risk of microbial contamination in the second breast. However, treating the funnel with a chlorhexidine-isopropyl alcohol solution effectively restores sterility, reducing contamination risks and maintaining cost-effectiveness. This decontamination process offers a viable and cost-effective solution for enhancing patient safety and reducing complications in breast implant surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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
40456997What 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.