Outcomes and Complications of Autologous Fat Transfer for Total Breast Reconstruction and Augmentation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Meijer GS., van den Eijkel RCM., Smit JM., Vidal-Itriago A., Young-Afat DA., Negenborn VL.
Meta-analysis, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2026) — 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
- Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2026)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 42232883
- PMCID
- PMC13225575
- DOI
- 10.1097/GOX.0000000000007795
Abstract (original English)
Background Autologous fat transfer (AFT) for total breast reconstruction and augmentation is increasingly applied due to its advantages over implants and autologous flaps, including minimal invasiveness, minimal donor-site morbidity, and quick recovery. However, AFT is not without complications when applied for full breast reconstruction, underscoring the need to evaluate its safety and effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the oncological and surgical safety of AFT as a stand-alone procedure for total breast reconstruction and augmentation, including the effectiveness of different AFT techniques and patient-reported satisfaction. Methods A MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science search (from inception to December 2024) focusing solely on randomized controlled trials evaluating AFT outcomes for total breast reconstruction or augmentation was performed. Animal studies, partial reconstruction/augmentation, and combined procedures were excluded. Data were extracted and analyzed using random-effects meta-analyses, following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Results From 2323 identified articles, 9 randomized controlled trials were included. AFT showed fewer surgical complications compared with implant-based reconstruction. Oncological safety was similar be
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.