Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Gentile, Pietro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348805/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34362094
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10153310
_version_ 1783735432365735936
author Gentile, Pietro
author_facet Gentile, Pietro
author_sort Gentile, Pietro
collection PubMed
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 (p < 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8348805
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83488052021-08-08 Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in Comparison Gentile, Pietro J Clin Med Article 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 (p < 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. MDPI 2021-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8348805/ /pubmed/34362094 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10153310 Text en © 2021 by the author. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Gentile, Pietro
Breast Silicone Gel Implants versus Autologous Fat Grafting: Biomaterials and Bioactive Materials in Comparison
title 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_short 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
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348805/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34362094
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10153310
work_keys_str_mv AT gentilepietro breastsiliconegelimplantsversusautologousfatgraftingbiomaterialsandbioactivematerialsincomparison