Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Achieving ideal breast aesthetics with autologous reconstruction

Nahabedian MY.

Narrative Review on Ankle & Foot, published in Gland Surg (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Gland Surg (2015)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
26005645
PMCID
PMC4409671
DOI
10.3978/j.issn.2227-684x.2015.03.03
Citations
14

Abstract (original English)

Achieving ideal breast aesthetic has become a top priority for women considering breast reconstruction following mastectomy. The use of autologous tissue is generally regarded as providing the most natural results because donor tissues quality and consistency is similar to that of the native breast. There are several donor sites that are particularly useful for autologous reconstruction that include the abdomen, gluteal region, posterior thorax, and the thigh. Traditional and microsurgical techniques can be used. Shaping is a critical component and involves a basic understanding of the footprint, conus, and skin envelope. This manuscript will review many aspects of breast shaping in-order to achieve aesthetically pleasing results in a predictable manner.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research