Breast Reconstruction Combining Lipofilling and Prepectoral Prosthesis after Radiotherapy
Razzouk K., Fitoussi A., Al Khori N., Pasquier J., Chouchane L., Tabrizi AR.
Retrospective Study with a reported sample of 136, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2020) — 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
- Retrospective Study
- Journal
- Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2020)
- Reported sample size
- 136
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 33133881
- PMCID
- PMC7572071
- DOI
- 10.1097/gox.0000000000002659
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Prosthetic reconstruction in previously irradiated breasts has been associated with a higher risk of complications. Here we describe the surgical and cosmetic outcome of our breast reconstruction process based on primary fat grafting combined with prosthetic placement. Methods In this multicenter retrospective study, 136 patients who underwent mastectomy and external chest wall radiotherapy between 2014 and 2018 were benefited from chest wall lipofilling and silicone implant placement were chosen. Patients were assessed for skin trophicity, thickness, and mobility and were allowed to undergo several lipofilling sessions before implant placement, if required. No patient had >3 lipofilling sessions. Cosmetic outcome was evaluated by the patient, surgeon, and nurse, using a Likert-type ordinal scale. Results We included 136 patients: 79 patients (58%) received only 1 session of lipofilling before implant placement, 33 (24.6%) had 2 sessions, and 24 (17.4%) had 3 sessions. The volume of the third lipofilling was significantly higher and the volume of the prosthesis of these patients was significantly lower than those of patients undergoing 1 or 2 lipofillings. Reconstruction failure rate was 2.2% (3 patients had explantation); however, all benefited from prosthesis reconstruction a year after the initial procedures. The average satisfaction score was 4.7 out of 5 as evaluated by pa
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.
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.