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.2 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 2015-2020 was analysed for the use, and type, of antiseptic rinse. The surgeon-reported data was homogenized for terminology and categorized into major trends, and the literature reviewed.
Results: We analysed data for 37,143 patients, totalling 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 4,200 (5.7%), and 'Betadine® triple antibiotic'1 in 1,831 implants (2.5%). Multiple other antiseptic permutations were noted in 7,004 implants (9.5%).
Conclusions: The majority (56.7%) of Australian practitioners utilise previously-described antiseptic pocket irrigation solutions which align with the 14-point plan. A third (32.8%), however, do not record any antiseptic pocket irrigation use. These findings will permit a subsequent (ongoing) study of outcomes comparing PVP-I to no antiseptic pocket rinse that will likely constitute the largest study of its kind.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.