Autologous Fat Grafting for Breast Augmentation and Breast Remodeling: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Complications, Radiologic Outcomes, Graft Retention, and Patient-Reported Satisfaction.
meta_analysis · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42697558.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1093/asj/sjag187.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Autologous fat grafting (AFG) is increasingly used for aesthetic breast augmentation and remodeling because it provides natural tissue augmentation without permanent implants. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated complications, radiologic outcomes, graft retention, and patient satisfaction following AFG. A PRISMA 2020-compliant search identified 40 primary clinical studies including 5,684 patients. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2, ROBINS-I, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analysis used restricted maximum likelihood estimation as the primary model, with Hartung-Knapp adjustment and DerSimonian-Laird and Paule-Mandel estimators in sensitivity analyses. Mean follow-up exceeded 6 months. The pooled complication rate was 25.9% (95% CI, 22.4-29.6), mainly consisting of minor radiologic or palpable findings; fat necrosis was the most common adverse event. Benign radiologic findings included fat necrosis (8.8%) and calcifications (1.1%), without evidence of impaired cancer detection. Mean injected fat volume was 310 mL per breast. Twelve-month volume retention was 61.3% (95% CI, 57.1-65.4), with higher retention in SVF/PRP-enriched grafts (68.9% vs 56.1%; p<0.01), although evidence remained heterogeneous. Patient satisfaction was 93.1% (95% CI, 90.4-95.8), despite heterogeneous PROMs. Heterogeneity was substantial for complications (I2=78%; τ2=0.021; Q=177.6; p<0.001) and volume retention (I2=82%; τ2=0.067; Q=216.4; p<0.001), and moderate for radiologic outcomes (I2=52%; τ2=0.008; Q=81.3; p<0.001), reflecting variability in techniques, imaging, processing, enrichment, assessment methods, and follow-up. Current observational evidence supports favorable safety profiles; however, oncologic outcomes were not quantitatively pooled, and prospective comparative studies with standardized reporting are required.