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

Autologous fat grafting in breast reconstruction: implications for follow-up and surveillance

Hanson SE., Kapur SK., Hwang RF., Dryden MS.

Narrative Review, published in Gland Surg (2021) — 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 (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
33634006
PMCID
PMC7882329
DOI
10.21037/gs.2020.04.04
Citations
22

Abstract (original English)

The procedural volume of autologous fat grafting (AFG) has risen over the past several years, specifically in the setting of breast reconstruction, despite controversy surrounding its oncologic safety. While some in vitro and animal models have cast doubt on the oncologic safety of AFG, there is no clinical evidence that AFG in breast reconstruction is associated with an increased risk of cancer development or recurrence or an inability to adequately assess changes in the breast. That being said, recommendations regarding surveillance and follow-up after AFG in breast reconstruction are largely surgeon directed and differ across practices. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current literature and provide evidence-based recommendations.

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.