Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in Comparison

In the last 20 years, surgical procedures in breast remodeling during mammoplasty have been deeply modified with a gradual shifting from an invasive intervention using definitive implants (DIs) to a more conservative autologous fat grafting (AFG). AFG has been used for many years as bioactive materi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Pietro Gentile
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-07-01
Series:Journal of Clinical Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/15/3310
id doaj-b1898f79eadf4607a10a995fcfc3e1bf
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b1898f79eadf4607a10a995fcfc3e1bf2021-08-06T15:26:45ZengMDPI AGJournal of Clinical Medicine2077-03832021-07-01103310331010.3390/jcm10153310Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in ComparisonPietro Gentile0Department of Surgical Science, “Tor Vergata” University, 00133 Rome, ItalyIn the last 20 years, surgical procedures in breast remodeling during mammoplasty have been deeply modified with a gradual shifting from an invasive intervention using definitive implants (DIs) to a more conservative autologous fat grafting (AFG). AFG has been used for many years as bioactive material through the Lipofilling technique and as a bioactive scaffold when it was enriched with adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs), while DIs have been considered physiologically inert biomaterials with low toxicity. The paper aimed to compare the breast remodeling results obtained in the DI group (55 patients) for hypoplasia correction with those of the ASC-enhanced AFG group (50 patients), also analyzing the influence of breast and chest deformities (tuberous breast, volume, and nipple–areola complex asymmetry, pectus excavatum and carinatum) in the cosmetic outcome. A retrospective, case-control study was conducted. The pre-operative analysis was performed with an accurate clinical evaluation, a photographic assessment, and an instrumental evaluation based on magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound. Of patients treated with DIs 89% (n = 49) showed excellent cosmetic results after 1 year compared with the patients treated with AFG, who showed the same results in 64% (n = 32) of cases. The naturalness of the results in the AFG group was higher than that in the DI group (<i>p</i> < 0.0001 vs. DI group). DIs and AFG were safe and effective in this case series treated. The AFG group showed more natural results, allowing the treatment of patients with pectus excavatum, while DIs showed the more evident and lasting result.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/15/3310breast augmentationbreast fat graftingbreast implantsbreast remodelingplastic surgery
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Pietro Gentile
spellingShingle Pietro Gentile
Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in Comparison
Journal of Clinical Medicine
breast augmentation
breast fat grafting
breast implants
breast remodeling
plastic surgery
author_facet Pietro Gentile
author_sort Pietro Gentile
title Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in Comparison
title_short Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in Comparison
title_full Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in Comparison
title_fullStr Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in Comparison
title_full_unstemmed Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in Comparison
title_sort breast silicone gel implants versus autologous fat grafting: biomaterials and bioactive materials in comparison
publisher MDPI AG
series Journal of Clinical Medicine
issn 2077-0383
publishDate 2021-07-01
description In the last 20 years, surgical procedures in breast remodeling during mammoplasty have been deeply modified with a gradual shifting from an invasive intervention using definitive implants (DIs) to a more conservative autologous fat grafting (AFG). AFG has been used for many years as bioactive material through the Lipofilling technique and as a bioactive scaffold when it was enriched with adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs), while DIs have been considered physiologically inert biomaterials with low toxicity. The paper aimed to compare the breast remodeling results obtained in the DI group (55 patients) for hypoplasia correction with those of the ASC-enhanced AFG group (50 patients), also analyzing the influence of breast and chest deformities (tuberous breast, volume, and nipple–areola complex asymmetry, pectus excavatum and carinatum) in the cosmetic outcome. A retrospective, case-control study was conducted. The pre-operative analysis was performed with an accurate clinical evaluation, a photographic assessment, and an instrumental evaluation based on magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound. Of patients treated with DIs 89% (n = 49) showed excellent cosmetic results after 1 year compared with the patients treated with AFG, who showed the same results in 64% (n = 32) of cases. The naturalness of the results in the AFG group was higher than that in the DI group (<i>p</i> < 0.0001 vs. DI group). DIs and AFG were safe and effective in this case series treated. The AFG group showed more natural results, allowing the treatment of patients with pectus excavatum, while DIs showed the more evident and lasting result.
topic breast augmentation
breast fat grafting
breast implants
breast remodeling
plastic surgery
url https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/15/3310
work_keys_str_mv AT pietrogentile breastsiliconegelimplantsversusautologousfatgraftingbiomaterialsandbioactivematerialsincomparison
_version_ 1721218189938917376