Ann Plast Reconstr Surg | Volume 10, Issue 1 | Case Report | Open Access
Abenavoli FM*, Tujjar O and Alfonso A
Department of Plastic and Maxillo-Facial Surgeon, Ireland
Consultant in Anaesthesia, Intensive Care, and Pain Medicine, National Orthopaedic Hospital Cappagh Dublin,
Ireland
Department of Anaesthesia - CUH Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK
*Correspondance to: [email protected]
Fulltext PDFPeri-implant fluid collections after breast augmentation may arise from mechanical irritation, malposition, hematoma, or infection (including subclinical contamination). A structured diagnostic approach is recommended because clinical features can overlap across benign and serious causes. Introduction: Peri-implant fluid collections after breast augmentation may arise from mechanical irritation, malposition, hematoma, or infection (including subclinical contamination). A structured diagnostic approach is recommended because clinical features can overlap across benign and serious causes. Case Presentation: A 38-year-old woman underwent cosmetic breast augmentation. Within weeks she reported deformity on pectoralis contraction and episodes of intense pain responsive to anti-inflammatory therapy. Eight months postoperatively, she developed sudden right breast swelling with pain, skin hyperemia and fever, treated with amoxicillin/clavulanate followed by ceftriaxone (10 days). Ultrasound demonstrated abundant right peri-implant effusion. Symptoms improved, but swelling persisted. Ultrasound-guided aspiration yielded opalescent yellow fluid; cytology was consistent with a reactive inflammatory process without atypia. A further aspiration and anti-inflammatory therapy were followed by temporary improvement. Sixteen months after breast implant placement, she presented with implant displacement, and subsequently developed recurrent mastitis, accompanied by fever and pain, complicated by partial wound necrosis, prompting implant removal. Re-augmentation was performed approximately three months later with anatomical implants (Mentor, 370 cc), followed by areolar symmetry surgery. Residual aesthetic concerns and complications contributed to severe psychological distress requiring psychotherapy. Conclusion: This case highlights the importance of early structured evaluation of delayed peri-implant effusion within the first postoperative year, with attention to potential mechanical contributors (including inframammary fold integrity and implant position), consideration of occult infection, and clear safety-netting when symptoms recur.
Breast implant; Peri-implant effusion; Breast augmentation
Abenavoli FM, Tujjar O, Alfonso A. Evaluation of Recurrent Peri-Prosthetic Effusion A Case Report. Ann Plast Reconstr Surg. 2026; 10(1): 1126.