ArticleJPRAS open2025
Preliminary study for developing a fully biological breast implant.
Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Breast cancer reconstruction remains limited by complications associated with current techniques. This study evaluates a novel biological breast implant composed of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) shaped like a silicone implant, combined with natural biological content, including autologous fat, in a single porcine model. Methods: Four implant types were tested in subcutaneous pockets of a Yorkshire pig: implants filled with autologous fat and dermal microbeads, implants filled with autologous fat alone, implants filled with dermal microbeads alone, and an implant made entirely of P4HB mesh. Clinical, physical, and histological evaluations were performed over three months, focusing on inflammation, neovascularization, and tissue integration. Results: The implant filled with autologous fat and dermal microbeads demonstrated good integration, moderate neovascularization, and fibrous encapsulation, though some steatonecrosis occurred. The implant filled with autologous fat alone failed structurally by day 60. Implants filled with dermal microbeads and the P4HB mesh implant exhibited poor integration and rigidity. Conclusion: This study represents a first step in developing a fully biological breast implant. While the combination of an ADM implant with natural fillers such as autologous fat and dermal microbeads shows promise, further experiments are necessary to refine the implant's content. Future research will focus on optimizing the ratio of fat to microbeads and exploring alternative fillers, such as hyaluronic acid or collagen gel, to improve adipocyte viability, vascularization, and long-term functionality.
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.