Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in Comparison.
Gentile P.
Retrospective Study with a reported sample of 49, published in J Clin Med (2021) — 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
- J Clin Med (2021)
- Country
- Switzerland
- Reported sample size
- 49
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 34362094
- PMCID
- PMC8348805
- DOI
- 10.3390/jcm10153310
- Citations
- 28
Abstract (original English)
In the last 20 years, surgical procedures in breast remodeling during mammoplasty have been deeply modified with a gradual shifting from an invasive intervention using definitive implants (DIs) to a more conservative autologous fat grafting (AFG). AFG has been used for many years as bioactive material through the Lipofilling technique and as a bioactive scaffold when it was enriched with adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs), while DIs have been considered physiologically inert biomaterials with low toxicity. The paper aimed to compare the breast remodeling results obtained in the DI group (55 patients) for hypoplasia correction with those of the ASC-enhanced AFG group (50 patients), also analyzing the influence of breast and chest deformities (tuberous breast, volume, and nipple-areola complex asymmetry, pectus excavatum and carinatum) in the cosmetic outcome. A retrospective, case-control study was conducted. The pre-operative analysis was performed with an accurate clinical evaluation, a photographic assessment, and an instrumental evaluation based on magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound. Of patients treated with DIs 89% (n = 49) showed excellent cosmetic results after 1 year compared with the patients treated with AFG, who showed the same results in 64% (n = 32) of cases. The naturalness of the results in the AFG group was higher than that in the DI group ( p
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.