Comparative study of layered breast defect reconstruction and traditional surgery in the treatment of plasma cell mastitis: a single-center study
Xu H., Zheng H., Dabu X., Hou L., Xue L., Wang Y.
Retrospective Study with a reported sample of 24, published in Gland 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
- Retrospective Study
- Journal
- Gland Surg (2025)
- Reported sample size
- 24
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40948927
- PMCID
- PMC12432936
- DOI
- 10.21037/gs-2025-99
- Citations
- 2
Abstract (original English)
Background Plasma cell mastitis (PCM) is a chronic inflammatory breast disease that presents challenges in achieving both effective disease control and satisfactory cosmetic outcomes. Layered breast defect reconstruction (LBDR) is a technique that may reduce recurrence and improve breast aesthetics. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical value of LBDR compared to traditional surgical repair in PCM patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 90 female PCM patients treated at the Third Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital between 2002 and 2018. Patients with histologically confirmed PCM who underwent surgical treatment and completed at least 3 years of follow-up were included. Based on the surgical technique, patients were divided into two groups: traditional surgery (n=24) and LBDR (n=66). Baseline clinical characteristics-including age, body mass index (BMI), disease duration, and comorbidities-were collected and compared between groups. The primary outcomes were postoperative recurrence and aesthetic satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and complication rates. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of favorable outcomes. Results The two groups were generally comparable in baseline characteristics, including BMI, smoking history, breastfeeding history, and clinical symptoms
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.