ArticleAesthetic surgery journal2026
Prophylactic Antibiotic-Loaded Cement, Absorbable and Nonabsorbable, for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2026. 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.
- Pilot Study: Vancomycin Calcium Sulfate Beads in the Prevention of Recurrent Capsular Contracture of Breast Implants.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriprosthetic infection after postmastectomy breast reconstruction remains a significant issue and may result in explantation, with many patients choosing to forego reconstruction thereafter.
objectivesThe aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of absorbable and nonabsorbable prophylactic antibiotic cement in reducing infection rates in implant-based breast reconstruction.
methodsA multi-institutional, retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent tissue expander (TE) reconstruction with permanent or absorbable antibiotic-loaded cement. Patients received either (1) nonabsorbable polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) plates loaded with vancomycin and tobramycin or (2) absorbable calcium sulfate (CS) beads or discs loaded with gentamycin and vancomycin. Medical history, perioperative details, and complications were collected. Comparisons were made between those who received nonabsorbable PMMA and those who received absorbable CS.
resultsA total of 295 TE reconstructions was performed on 189 patients. Ninety-three (31.5%) breasts received PMMA, and 202 (68.5%) received CS. Seven (2.4%) breasts had infections, with 1 (0.3%) occurring beyond 6 weeks postoperatively and 6 (2.0%) occurring within 6 weeks. Four infected breasts had previous debridement due to wound dehiscence or mastectomy flap necrosis, and 1 occurred within the setting of an infected drain site. One TE was lost from infection. Antibiotic-loaded, nonabsorbable PMMA and absorbable CS had no significant differences in infection rates (4.3% vs 1.5%, respectively). Patients did not receive prophylactic oral antibiotics.
conclusionsAntibiotic-loaded cement can be effective for infection prevention in implant-based reconstruction. Nonabsorbable PMMA and absorbable CS for local antibiotic delivery resulted in similar safety profiles. Oral prophylactic antibiotics can be omitted safely with utilization of local antibiotic delivery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 (THERAPEUTIC): For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
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.