Contemporary Trends in Antiseptic Pocket Rinse in Primary Breast Implant Surgery

Abstract

Abstract Background Broad evidence supports the use of antiseptic pocket rinse in breast implant surgery to minimize the risk of capsular contracture or other complications. However, there is limited consensus or standardization of antiseptic rinse in practice. Objectives In this preliminary study, we sought to determine contemporary trends in antiseptic rinse use in primary breast implant surgery based on Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) data, and whether these trends align with the suggestions of the 14-point plan. This further served as a feasibility study for subsequent comparison of antiseptic rinse effects on clinical outcomes. Methods Institutional ethics approval was obtained and national ABDR data for primary breast implant surgery from 2015 to 2020 were analyzed for the use and type of antiseptic rinse. The surgeon-reported data were homogenized with regard to terminology and categorized by major trends, and the literature was reviewed. Results We analyzed data for 37,143 patients, totaling 73,935 primary implants. Antiseptic rinse included povidone-iodine (PVP-I) in 35,859 (48.5%), no antiseptic use in 24,216 (32.8%), other concentrations of PVP-I in 4200 (5.7%), and Betadine triple antibiotic in 1831 implants (2.5%). Multiple other antiseptic permutations were noted in 7004 implants (9.5%). Conclusions The majority (56.7%) of Australian practitioners utilize previously described antiseptic pocket irrigation solutions that align with the 14-point plan. A third (32.8%), however, do not record any antiseptic pocket irrigation. These findings will permit a subsequent (ongoing) study of outcomes comparing PVP-I pocket rinse to no antiseptic pocket rinse, which will likely constitute the largest study of its kind.