The Current State of the Art in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Review and Modern/Future Approaches
Cho MJ., Schroeder M., Flores Garcia J., Royfman A., Moreira A.
Narrative Review, published in J Clin Med (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- J Clin Med (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40095465
- PMCID
- PMC11900405
- DOI
- 10.3390/jcm14051543
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Background/Objectives : Modern breast reconstruction has undergone substantial evolution, with implant-based, pedicled autologous, and free autologous techniques. The purpose of this study is to review the current state of the art in free autologous breast reconstruction, highlighting advancements in the types of flaps, donor site selection, techniques, and functional restoration. Methods : A literature review was conducted using PubMed to capture studies related to well-known free flaps that are used for breast reconstruction. Studies for each flap type were reviewed and sorted for inclusion into one of six categories: (1) clinical outcomes, (2) comparison studies of alternative flaps, (3) preoperative planning, (4) flap classifications and perfusion zones, (5) technique descriptions, and (6) time and cost analyses. Results : The majority (77%) of articles included were written on various types of abdominally based free flaps, including TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. These studies indicated an evolution in technique over time to minimize donor site morbidity, improve patient-reported and functional outcomes, improve efficiency, and expand clinical indications. The remaining 23% of articles discussed alternative flap choices, including PAP, TUG, S/IGAP, and LAP flaps. Studies highlighted technical challenges and the evolution of techniques to make these flaps more accessible, as w
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.