The risk of surgical site infection is always present in surgery; the use of prosthetic materials is linked to an increased possibility of infection. Breast augmentation and breast reconstruction with implants are gaining popularity in developing countries. Implant infection is the main complication related to breast aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. In the present paper, we reviewed the current microbiological knowledge about implant infections, with particular attention to risk factors, diagnosis, clinical management, and antibiotic prophylaxis, focusing on reports from developing countries. After breast aesthetic surgery, up to 2.9% of patients develop a surgical site infection, with an incidence of 1.7% for acute infections and 0.8% for late infections. The rate of surgical site infection after post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is usually higher, ranging from 1% to 53%. The clinical features are not constant, and bacterial culture with antibiogram is the gold standard for diagnosis and for identification of antibiotic resistance. While waiting for culture results, empiric therapy with vancomycin and extendedspectrum penicillins or cephalosporins is recommended. Some patients require removal of the infected prosthesis. The main methods to bring down the risk of infection are strict asepsis protocol, preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, and irrigation of the surgical pocket and implant with an antibiotic solution.Key words: breast implant infections; acute infections; late infections; fungal infections; rare infections. EpidemiologyImplant infection is the main complication related to breast aesthetic and reconstructive surgery [1]. After breast aesthetic augmentation, up to 2.9% of women are affected by infection [2], with an incidence of 1.7% for acute infections versus an incidence of 0.8% for late infections, as confirmed by retrospective cohort studies with long-term follow-ups [1]. In developing countries, this problem is even more prevalent; surgery has a 50% rate of possible complications, of which infection is the main complication [3]. The rate of surgical site infection after post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is usually higher, ranging from 1% to 53% [4,5]. In breast reconstruction, a higher rate of infection was reported with expander implants compared to reconstruction with autologous tissue such as latissimus dorsi flaps [6]. The highest rates were found in women undergoing immediate reconstruction [4]. The reported number of infections after mammary augmentation and reconstruction is lower than the real incidence, because of the lack of a surveillance network of patients based on long-time follow-ups. The economic commitment for management of implant infections is significant. Kirkland et al. [7] reported an increase of hospital permanence for surgical site infection of 6.5 days, with related health care costs. In the United States, health care costs for surgical site infection after breast surgery were estimated to be about $4,091 [7], or $574 in the outpatient setting [9]...

This observational study compared optic coherence tomography (OCT) and B-scan in the detection of optic disc drusen. In total, 86 eyes of 50 patients with optic disc drusen (ODD) (36 bilateral) with a mean age of 34.68 ± 23.81 years, and 54 eyes of 27 patients with papilledema, with a mean age of 35.42 years ± 17.47, were examined. Patients with ODD, diagnosed with ultrasound, underwent spectral-domain OCT evaluation. With US, 28 ODD cases were classified as large (4 buried and 24 superficial), 58 were classified as point-like (6 buried, 49 superficial and 3 mixed). Then, all patients underwent OCT. OCT was able to detect the presence of ODD and/or peripapillary hyperreflective ovoid mass structure (PHOMS) in 69 eyes (p < 0.001). In particular, 7 eyes (8.14%) showed the presence of ODD alone, 25 eyes (29.07%) showed only PHOMS and 37 eyes (43.02%) showed ODD and PHOMS. In 17 eyes (19.77%) no ODD or PHOMS were detected. In the papilledema group, no ODD were observed with both US and OCT. OCT showed the presence of drusen or similar lesions in only 80.23% of the cases highlighted by the US scan, so it does not allow for certain ODD diagnoses, especially in the case of buried ODD.

Background: Intraocular pressure (IOP) is influenced by body position. The purpose of this study is to compare the IOP measurements obtained with two different devices, to investigate IOP changes in standing, sitting, and supine positions. Methods: In this comparative prospective case series, IOP was measured in sitting, supine, prone, and standing (standing 1) positions and again five minutes after standing (standing 2), utilizing an Icare Pro (ICP) and a Tono-Pen Avia (TPA) in the 64 eyes of 32 healthy subjects. Results: Compared to the sitting position, both devices showed an increase in the IOP both in supine and standing 2 positions (p < 0.05). The mean IOP difference between the two devices was: in the sitting position, 0.57 ± 2.10 mmHg (range: −3.80 to 6.60 mmHg) (p < 0.05), in the supine position, 0.93 ± 2.49 mmHg (range: −4.50 to 7.10 mmHg) (p < 0.05), in the standing 1 position, 0.37 ± 1.96 mmHg (range: −5.20 to 5.00 mmHg) (p = 0.102), and in the standing 2 position 0.73 ± 2.03 mmHg (range: −4.5 to 6.4 mmHg) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The results highlight an agreement between the TPA and ICP, both confirming not only the increase in IOP in the supine position, but also showing an increase in the standing 2 position. Therefore, it is suggested to perform such measurements in patients with glaucoma, to explain its progression in an apparently normal tension or in compensated patients.

No abstract