SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Systematic Review: Periareolar Mastopexy with Breast Implants and Fat Grafting.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriareolar mastopexy (PM) is a widely used technique for breast lift surgery, often combined with implants to improve breast volume. In recent years, autologous fat grafting (FG) has emerged as an adjunct to PM, enhancing contour and soft tissue volume.
objectivesThis article aimed to assess the complication rate, patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes, and long-term PM results combined with breast implants (BI) and FG.
methodsA systematic review was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, PreMEDLINE, EBase, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. The protocol was developed following the Preferred Reporting for Items for Systematic Reviews-Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The included studies had to match predetermined criteria according to the PICOS approach.
resultsA total of 13 studies with 1165 patients were included. The results showed a significant improvement in patient satisfaction, with 85% of patients reporting high satisfaction levels. The complication rate was relatively low, with capsular contracture (7.3%), fat absorption (9.7%), and wound healing issues (4.9%) being the most common. Aesthetic outcomes, measured by breast symmetry and shape, showed favorable results in 78.2% of patients. The combination of PM with BI and FG improved the breast's volume and contour, providing a more natural outcome than BI alone.
conclusionsPM with BI and FG appears to be a safe and effective procedure for enhancing breast aesthetics. The combination of these techniques offers significant improvements in patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes with acceptable complication rates. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and establish long-term safety profiles. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Evidence from a systematic review of all relevant controlled trials. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
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.