Systematic Review: Periareolar Mastopexy with Breast Implants and Fat Grafting.

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

Abstract (original English)

Background Periareolar mastopexy (PM) is a widely used technique for breast lift surgery, often combined with implants to improve breast volume. In recent years, autologous fat grafting (FG) has emerged as an adjunct to PM, enhancing contour and soft tissue volume. Objectives This article aimed to assess the complication rate, patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes, and long-term PM results combined with breast implants (BI) and FG. Methods A systematic review was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, PreMEDLINE, EBase, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. The protocol was developed following the Preferred Reporting for Items for Systematic Reviews-Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The included studies had to match predetermined criteria according to the PICOS approach. Results A total of 13 studies with 1165 patients were included. The results showed a significant improvement in patient satisfaction, with 85% of patients reporting high satisfaction levels. The complication rate was relatively low, with capsular contracture (7.3%), fat absorption (9.7%), and wound healing issues (4.9%) being the most common. Aesthetic outcomes, measured by breast symmetry and shape, showed favorable results in 78.2% of patients. The combination of PM with BI and FG improved the breast's volume and contour, providing a more natural outcome than BI alone

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.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.