Fat Graft in Composite Breast Augmentation with Round Implant: A New Concept for Breast Reshaping

Hybrid Breast Augmentation: Double Benefit or Double Risk? A Comparative Study of 932 Cases

BACKGROUND

The authors propose a hybrid breast augmentation (HBA) method combining implants and fat grafting and explore the outcome and safety through a retrospective, single-center, propensity score-matched, comparative study.

METHODS

Outcome, satisfaction, and complications were compared between the HBA group (302 cases) and the implant-based breast augmentation (IBA) group (353 cases), and between the HBA group and the autologous fat grafting (AFG) group (277 cases).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 31.7 months. After propensity score matching (PSM), 270 cases were matched between the HBA and IBA groups, and 156 cases were matched between the HBA and AFG groups. Compared with the IBA group, HBA achieved higher scores of implant visibility/palpability and upper pole contour with the specialists' evaluations (before and after PSM; P < 0.05). Regarding patient satisfaction, the scores of softness (before and after PSM), smoothness of the upper pole (before PSM), and overall satisfaction (after PSM) of the HBA group were better ( P < 0.05). Implant-related complications occurred at a similar rate. Compared with the AFG group, HBA achieved higher scores of shape (before and after PSM) and symmetry (after PSM) with evaluations by specialists ( P < 0.05). The scores of shape, symmetry, and overall satisfaction in the HBA group were better (before and after PSM; P < 0.05). The HBA group showed a lower incidence of palpable cysts, fat necrosis, oil cysts, and fat calcification (before PSM; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

When the three techniques were compared objectively, HBA presented better indices of aesthetic outcomes, satisfaction, and acceptable complications rates when compared with IBA and AFG.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Autologous Fat Grafting in Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: Prospective Cohort Study Using a Multivariate Analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is widespread recognition of the importance of assessment of patient satisfaction and well-being after breast reconstruction. However, few studies of fat grafting performed simultaneously with implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) have accounted for confounding factors, such as patient background and information bias. The aim of this study was to examine patient satisfaction and well-being using multivariate analysis of BREAST-Q scores in patients treated with IBBR combined with fat grafting.

METHODS

Seventy-one consecutive patients who underwent IBBR with silicone breast implants were enrolled for a prospective cohort study. Among these patients, 56 responded to the BREAST-Q questionnaire, including 24 who underwent fat grafting at the same time as IBBR (FAT+ group) and 32 who underwent IBBR alone (FAT- group). The BREAST-Q questionnaire was completed 1 year after surgery. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive and summary statistics to identify differences between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Logistic regression analysis showed that the FAT+ group was significantly more likely than the FAT- group to have satisfaction with breasts (P = 0.0201) and satisfaction with outcome (P = 0.0364).

CONCLUSIONS

Multivariate analysis with consideration of confounding factors indicated that addition of fat grafting to IBBR improves outcomes of breast reconstruction. These results suggest that a minor surgical procedure of fat grafting can improve patient satisfaction and outcomes after breast reconstruction.

A Preliminary Exploratory Study of Autologous Fat Transplantation in Breast Augmentation With Different Fat Transplantation Planes

Background

Autologous fat transfer is common in breast augmentationor reconstruction. However, AFG recipient site in the breast for fat grafting has not been carefully investigated.

Methods

Forty female patients requiring breast augmentation with fat grafting were randomly assigned into two groups. The retromammary group received 2/3 fat into the retromammary space and the other 1/3 into the subcutaneous and retropectoral planes. The retropectoral group received 2/3 fat into the retropectoral plane and the other 1/3 into the subcutaneous and retromammary planes. The fat grafting result at 6 months was assessed by 3D laser surface scanning and then ultrasound. Any complications were recorded during follow-up. Samples from a patient who underwent fat grafting for 6 months was obtained and histological examination was conducted.

Results

No significant difference in the retention rate after 6 months was observed between the two groups (retromammary group: 35.9% ± 6.6; retropectoral group: 39.3% ± 5.1, p = 0.1076). The retromammary grouphad a higher incidence of oil cyst formation than the retropectoral group. Histological examination showed that there were more oil cysts and mac2 positive macrophage infiltration in the fat cells in retromammary group, while retropectoral group had more small-size adipocytes.

Conclusion

Although fat grafting into the retropectoral plane did not provide a superior fat graft retention rate, it did lower the incidence of complications. The retropectoral space show great potential to become a favorable recipient site.