Dataset Information

Hybrid Implant and Grafted Fat Breast Augmentation: Designing the Pathway to a Future With Breasts Free of Silicone Breast Implants.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Fat grafting in breast augmentation surgery is becoming increasingly popular, allowing surgeons to fill the gaps that implant augmentation alone cannot. However, one of the current issues surrounding fat grafting is the lack of standardization.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to validate and summarize expert-based advice to help plastic surgeons better understand the benefits of utilizing fat grating to reduce implant size in their surgical planning.

Methods

This was a prospective study of fat grafting in 56 patients who underwent fat transfer together with silicone breast implants. A 3-dimensional planning system was used to plan the procedure and also to analyze the fat retention and resorption rates. Pictures served as a basis for a questionnaire in which both patients and physicians were asked to rate their satisfaction.

Results

Patients reported a satisfaction rate of "excellent" in 83.3% of cases and "good" in 16.7%. Physician satisfaction was rated as "excellent" in 84.5% of cases, "good" in 13.3%, and "fair" in 4.2% of cases. The mean fat volume grafted per breast was 113.63 mL. The mean absorption rate was 4.53%.

Conclusions

The procedure presented consistent and reproducible results. Hybrid breast augmentation can help design a pathway for a future with breasts free of silicone. This information is particularly relevant for women who have their first breast augmentation at an early age and will probably have 2 to 5 additional surgeries in their lifetime due to the nature of current silicone breast technology.

Level of evidence: 4

SUBMITTER: Sforza M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8564703 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe posttreatment pain associated with breast augmentation is a top concern of most patients and can affect the decision concerning surgery.ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the posttreatment pain and recovery times of patients undergoing primary breast augmentation with lightweight vs full-mass implants of similar volumes. The authors hypothesized that the reduced mechanical strain applied by lightweight implants elicits less pain.MethodsIn this retrospective, observational study, 100 women who had undergone primary breast augmentation with either a lightweight breast implant or a traditional full-mass silicone implant (n = 50), were contacted by phone and asked about their posttreatment experiences and overall satisfaction with the outcome. All women were treated by the same surgical team, and the two groups were matched by date of surgery.ResultsMost patients in the two cohorts had a self-reported preoperative B cup size and relatively high tolerance to pain. On average, LWBI patients were 6 years older than those undergoing full-mass implantation (32.4 ± 8.7 vs 26.2 ± 8.0; P = .0004) and more had experienced at least one pregnancy (61.2% vs 24%, P = .0002). LWBI patients opted for implants 39 ± 28.4 cc larger than patients in the control group. Subglandular placement was selected in most cases (LWBI: 83.7% and full-mass: 90.0%). Mean posttreatment pain was lower in the LWBI cohort (5.5 ± 2.4 vs 6.5 ± 2.4) and required a shorter duration of analgesics (3.87 ± 1.77 days vs 5.26 ± 2.94 days; P = .009). Age- and parity-adjusted measures demonstrated a respective 2-day and 5-day shorter recovery period and return to normal activities interval in the LWBI versus full-mass implant cohorts (P = .04 and P = .002, respectively).ConclusionsAs compared to traditional silicone filled full-mass implants, breast augmentations with B-Lite lightweight breast implants (G&G Biotechnology Ltd., Haifa, Israel) elicit less posttreatment pain and require less down-time, ultimately, meeting patients' quest for desired breast shape at minimal discomfort.Level of evidence 3