Prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction continues to gain popularity, largely due to its decreased postoperative pain, animation deformity, and operative time as compared to subpectoral reconstruction. Widespread use has led to opportunities for surgical revisions. While some techniques for submuscular reconstruction revisions, such as implant exchange and fat grafting, also apply to prepectoral revisions, others require modification for the prepectoral space. The prosthesis' unique reliance on the mastectomy flaps and acellular dermal matrix for support leads to a progressive alteration of the breast footprint, conus, envelope, and nipple-areola complex position. To date, revisions of prepectoral reconstructions have not been addressed in the literature. This article presents the senior author's (N.P.B.) techniques for (1) revising prepectoral breast reconstructions, including staged and direct-to-implant reconstructions, with a special focus on nipple-sparing reconstruction, and (2) minimizing undesirable outcomes of prepectoral reconstruction.

Background: There is a growing presence of literature within plastic surgery that establishes best practice for postoperative antibiotics after implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), although it has not been widely adopted or translated into clinical practice. This study aims to determine how antibiotic and duration affects patient outcomes. We hypothesize that IBBR patients who receive a longer duration of postoperative antibiotics will demonstrate higher rates of antibiotic resistance as compared with the institutional antibiogram. Methods: A retrospective chart review included patients who underwent IBBR between 2015 and 2020 at a single institution. Variables of interest included patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical techniques, infectious complications, and antibiograms. Groups were classified by antibiotic (cephalexin, clindamycin, or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) and duration (≤7 days, 8-14 days, and >14 days). Results: There were a total of 70 patients who experienced infections included in this study. Onset of infection did not differ based on antibiotic during either device implantation (postexpander P = 0.391; postimplant P = 0.234). Antibiotic and duration did not have an established relationship with explantation rate either (P = 0.154). In patients who had Staphylococcus aureus isolated, there was significantly increased resistance to clindamycin when compared with the institutional antibiogram (sensitivities of 43% and 68%, respectively). Conclusions: Neither antibiotic nor duration displayed a difference in overall patient outcomes, including explantation rates. In this cohort, S. aureus strains isolated in association with IBBR infections demonstrated a higher level of resistance to clindamycin compared with strains isolated and tested within the broader institution.