ReviewJPRAS open2024
Radiologic findings in women after Autologous Fat Transfer (AFT) based breast reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
Review in JPRAS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autologous fat transfer-related calcifications and enhancement on contrast-enhanced mammography mimicking malignancy.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Radiological Findings Post Autologous Fat Grafting and Breasts Procedures: Avoiding False Positive Results.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Review
- Essentials for optimizing outcomes in oncoplastic breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Autologous fat grafting and injectable fillers for post-reconstructive breast remodelling: A systematic review and quantitative synthesis.JPRAS open · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Autologous fat transfer (AFT) is increasingly used in breast reconstructive surgery. Due to post-surgical changes, in breast imaging after AFT, it can be challenging to differentiate between benign and suspicious findings. This systematic review aimed to present an overview of the literature on breast imaging after AFT-based breast reconstruction. The descriptive radiologic findings focus on different breast imaging modalities (i.e., mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) to provide an overview of the most commonly reported benign and suspicious findings. Results: The literature search yielded 20 studies from 2006-2022 that reported AFT-based breast reconstructions and included the radiologic evaluation of the included breast imaging modalities. Only six of the 20 included studies provided qualitative descriptions of radiologic findings. Fat necrosis was most frequently reported. On MG, fat necrosis was described in a variety of stages such as oil cyst or cytosteatonecrosis with or without calcifications. On US, it was described as a nonvascular hypo- or anechoic mass, and on breast MRI, it was most frequently reported as hypointense homogenous architectural distortion. Additional biopsies to differentiate between benign and malignant findings after AFT-based breast reconstruction were reported in 13 of the 20 studies. Among all included studies in the current review, a total of 34 of 137 biopsies were considered malignant (24.8%). Conclusion: Qualitative descriptions of the reported radiologic findings after AFT for breast reconstruction were limited. Additional biopsies can be considered to differentiate between benign and suspicious findings. More experience and research are necessary to improve the interpretation of breast imaging after AFT-based breast reconstructions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.