Breast Implants or Lipofilling in Augmentation Mammoplasty? A Randomized, Open-Label, Controlled Trial.
Gentile P.
Prospective Study with a reported sample of 90, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- 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
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
- Prospective Study
- Journal
- Aesthetic Plast Surg (2025)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- 90
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 40908320
- PMCID
- PMC12992393
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00266-025-05204-0
Abstract (original English)
The author presents his own experience using breast implants (BIs) or fat grafting, commonly called lipofilling (LPF), to correct breast hypoplasia. Compare the aesthetic results obtained in a study group (SG) using BIs in breast hypoplasia correction with those of a control group (CG) treated with LPF, analyzing the influence of breast and chest deformities (tuberous breast, breast volume differences/asymmetries, nipple-areola complex asymmetry, pectus excavatum, and carinatum) in the outcomes. A randomized, open-label controlled study was performed. A total of 95 patients affected by breast hypoplasia (SG) were treated with BI, comparing results with the CG (n = 90) treated with LPF. The pre-operative analysis was conducted through anamnesis (considering also the patient's expectations), clinical and photographic assessment, and an instrumental evaluation based on magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound. Post-operative follow-up occurred at 1, 2, 4 weeks, 3, 6, 12 months, and then annually until the fourth year. 87,5% (n = 83) of SG patients treated with BI showed excellent aesthetic outcomes after 12 months compared with the CG patients treated with LPF, who showed the same results in 70% (n = 63) of cases. Breast augmentation maintenance in the SG was significantly higher than in the CG (p < .0001). However, more natural results were reported in the CG than
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.