Aesthetic Breast Augmentation Mastopexy Followed by Post-surgical XXXX (PSPG): Clinic, Treatment, and Review of the Literature.

@entity1 @entity6081 @entity6794 @entity66 @entity228 @entity281 @entity272 @entity4537 @entity491
INTRODUCTION: @entity6794 ( @entity6794 ) is a rare autoinflammatory neutrophilic @entity4537 , often developing after a @entity6081 . In the literature there are several reports of post-surgical @entity6794 (PSPG) of the breast. The authors of this article experienced an impressive case of PSPG after an aesthetic breast augmentation mastopexy. PSPG is a rare but severe complication in this elective aesthetic surgical procedure. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed, focusing on PSPG after aesthetic breast surgery (augmentation mammoplasty/mastopexy). The online databases Pubmed, Medline, and Cochrane were used and additionally a Google   search was conducted. We compared the data obtained from a systematic literature review to an index case of PSPG after esthetic augmentation mammoplasty. RESULTS: The literature search identified seven articles describing eight cases of PSPG after aesthetic breast surgery. In four of these cases augmentation mammoplasty had been carried out, in two cases mastopexy and in two cases augmentation mammoplasty and mastopexy (augmentation mastopexy). The @entity1 we treated and describe in this paper underwent an augmentation mastopexy outside our clinic. Eight @entity1 suffered from @entity66 , at the site of surgical wounds, one @entity1 had disseminated disease. @entity491 was present in five cases (out of nine). Eight @entity1 had received @entity228 treatment, one @entity1 refused such treatment. The duration of @entity228 treatment was on average for 41 days (range 21-60 days). In all cases, the areola had been spared. Complete healing of PSPG was observed on average after 5 months (range 1.5 months-1 year). DISCUSSION: PSPG of the breast after aesthetic breast surgery is rare, but every plastic surgeon should consider this possibility, especially if @entity272 develops post-surgery, mimicking wound @entity281 that does not respond to broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSION: Although the literature does not recommend this step, implant removal is recommended by the authors because bacterial wound @entity281 normally cannot be ruled out definitely in the early stages of disease. Additional surgical intervention should be limited to the absolute necessary and performed only under adequate systemic immunosuppressive therapy.
