The impact of immediate lipofilling on oncological outcomes, complication rates and patient reported outcomes in breast conserving surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lucocq J., Baig H., Michael Dixon J.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 170, published in Eur J Surg Oncol (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- 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
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Eur J Surg Oncol (2025)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- 170
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 40961855
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ejso.2025.110446
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Background There is concern from in-vitro studies that adipose-derived stem cells could promote cancer recurrence through their proliferative properties. The impact of immediate lipofilling (ILF) in the setting of breast conserving surgery (BCS) on oncological outcomes, complications and patient-reported outcomes are unknown. Methods A systematic search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central was conducted for studies investigating the impact of ILF in patients undergoing BCS. Random-effects meta-analysis were conducted for oncological outcomes (local [LR], regional [RR], distant [DR] and overall recurrence). Results Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria including 252 patients. The pooled LR, RR, DR and overall recurrence rates were 2.38 %, 1.52 %, 3.03 % and 5.95 %, respectively (median follow-up, 39 months). A meta-analysis of studies comparing ILF (n = 170) with no-ILF (n = 362) found no difference in LR (OR, 0.77; 95 % CI, 0.19-3.17; p = 0.714), RR (OR 1.73, 95 % CI 0.36-8.21, p = 0.686), DR (OR 1.37, 95 % CI, 0.51-3.63; p = 0.627) or overall recurrence (OR 1.23, 95 % CI, 0.60-2.52; p = 0.569). Cancer-specific survival in the ILF group was 100 % compared to 98.7 % with no-ILF. Post-operative calcifications (12.9 % [21/163] vs. 0 %; [0/72], p = 0.002) and fat necrosis (7.8 % (17/217] vs. 2.8 % [8/283], p = 0.011) were significantly more common with ILF, but early comp
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.