Incidence of Methicillin-Resistant<i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>(MRSA) Carrier Status in Patients Undergoing Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Hart, Alexandra M.; Desai, Karan; Yoo, Jason J.; Losken, Albert

doi:10.1093/asj/sjw108

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(iv) Post-operation, have postoperative antibiotics been prescribed? Although Hart et al [20] found a low incidence of MRSA colonization (<5%) postoperatively following BR, they pointed out an association between postoperative MRSA colonization and the delayed wound healing. This drawn association arose because MRSA carriers showed a higher incidence of major complications as postoperative SSI followed by delayed wound healing.…”

Section: Implant-associated Infectionsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The human breast contains endogenous flora originated from the nipple ducts, similar to that of the healthy skin [3]. Staphylococcal skin flora are commensally resided and commonly cultured from surgical sites following breast reconstruction (BR) [20]. The patient's skin is the predominant source of infection at the time of surgery.…”

Section: Implant-associated Infectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, MRSA outbreaks emerged from hospitals to community reservoirs. Healthy people could contract community-acquired MRSA (CA-MRSA) [6,13,14,20,21], especially those of low socioeconomic status (lack of medical care, crowding, poverty, and intravenous drug addiction) [22][23][24], and then die [21]. CA-MRSA was reported to cause community-acquired pneumonia associated with influenza (during the 2003-2004 influenza season) in the USA, eliciting severe illness and death [25].…”

Section: Introduction 1s Aureus and Resistance Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nanotheranostics: A Possible Solution for Drug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and their Biofilms?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Staphylococcus aureus is a notorious pathogen that colonizes implants (orthopedic and breast implants) and wounds with a vicious resistance to antibiotic therapy. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is a catastrophe mainly restricted to hospitals and emerged to community reservoirs, acquiring resistance and forming biofilms. Treating biofilms is problematic except via implant removal or wound debridement. Nanoparticles (NPs) and nanofibers could combat superbugs and biofilms and rapidly diagnose MRSA. Nanotheranostics combine diagnostics and therapeutics into a single agent. This comprehensive review is interpretative, utilizing mainly recent literature (since 2016) besides the older remarkable studies sourced via Google Scholar and PubMed. We unravel the molecular S. aureus resistance and complex biofilm. The diagnostic properties and detailed antibacterial and antibiofilm NP mechanisms are elucidated in exciting stories. We highlight the challenges of bacterial infections nanotheranostics. Finally, we discuss the literature and provide “three action appraisals”. (i) The first appraisal consists of preventive actions (two wings), avoiding unnecessary hospital visits, hand hygiene, and legislations against over-the-counter antibiotics as the general preventive wing. Our second recommended preventive wing includes preventing the adverse side effects of the NPs from resistance and toxicity by establishing standard testing procedures. These standard procedures should provide breakpoints of bacteria’s susceptibility to NPs and a thorough toxicological examination of every single batch of synthesized NPs. (ii) The second appraisal includes theranostic actions, using nanotheranostics to diagnose and treat MRSA, such as what we call “multifunctional theranostic nanofibers. (iii) The third action appraisal consists of collaborative actions.

show abstract

Section: Implant-associated Infectionsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Implant-associated Infectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction 1s Aureus and Resistance Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nanotheranostics: A Possible Solution for Drug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and their Biofilms?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since ADM defines this border regardless of subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement, violation of the IMF is not a contraindication to proceeding with prepectoral breast reconstruction. mupirocin is recommended for decolonization (19). Hibiclens showers in all patients the night before surgery is also recommended.…”

Section: The Boundaries Of the Breastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing perioperative strategies to maximize success with prepectoral breast reconstruction

Srinivasa¹,

Holland²,

Sbitany³

2019

Gland Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implant based reconstruction is still the most commonly employed method of post mastectomy reconstruction in the United States and internationally. Mastectomy techniques are improving, and adjuncts such as tissue perfusion technology and biologic implants allow for re-evaluation of traditional reconstructive methods. Subpectoral implant placement is used in a large majority of patients undergoing implant based reconstruction. However, with the advent of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), a "sling" for the expander and implant can be placed with surgical precision to create the optimal breast pocket. This has allowed for placement of the breast prosthesis in a prepectoral anatomic plane. The benefits are clear: avoidance of animation deformities and a significant decrease in pain that results from pectoralis mobilization and spasm. Here, we discuss specific techniques to avoid pitfalls and optimize aesthetic results with prepectoral breast reconstruction. Patient selection, intra-operative mastectomy flap evaluation, modifications in expander and implant fill, and technique specifics all play a critical role in this new, and rapidly growing method for implant based breast reconstruction.

show abstract

“…Organisms most often involved in breast prosthesis infection are Staphylococci (68.2%), usually S. aureus or S. epidermidis [3]. These organisms belong to normal skin flora and can colonize mammary ducts [4][5][6][7][8]. After incision of the skin and transection of the mammary ducts, the breast pocket is rapidly colonised.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Salvage of Recently Infected Breast Implant After Breast Augmentation or Reconstruction Possible? An Experimental Study

Castus¹,

Heymans

Melin

et al. 2018

Aesth Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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 .

show abstract

Incidence of Methicillin-ResistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) Carrier Status in Patients Undergoing Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Abstract: 2 Risk.

Cited by 6 publications

References 34 publications

Nanotheranostics: A Possible Solution for Drug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and their Biofilms?

Nanotheranostics: A Possible Solution for Drug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and their Biofilms?

Optimizing perioperative strategies to maximize success with prepectoral breast reconstruction

Is Salvage of Recently Infected Breast Implant After Breast Augmentation or Reconstruction Possible? An Experimental Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About