ReviewJPRAS open2026
Autologous fat grafting and injectable fillers for post-reconstructive breast remodelling: A systematic review and quantitative synthesis.
Review in JPRAS open, 2026. 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.
- Advancing fat graft survival: from adipose-derived stem cell mechanisms to next-generation regenerative strategies.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast remodelling after reconstructive surgery often requires secondary volume restoration and contour refinement. Autologous fat grafting (AFG) is widely used, whereas injectable body fillers are used in selected cases despite concerns regarding durability and late complications. We performed a systematic review with quantitative synthesis of available outcome data on post-reconstructive breast remodelling using AFG and injectable fillers. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus were searched from inception to October 2025. The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251113092). Primary clinical studies reporting outcomes after reconstructive breast remodelling with AFG and/or injectable fillers were included; systematic reviews were screened for reference identification but were not included as primary studies. Where clinical and methodological heterogeneity allowed, quantitative synthesis was performed using random-effects models in Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4. Heterogeneity thresholds were predefined using the I² statistic, and publication-bias analyses were limited to outcomes with sufficient study numbers. Twenty-three primary studies met inclusion criteria. For AFG, pooled 12-month volume retention was 63.7% (95% CI 58.4-69.0; random-effects model; I² = 42%), with pooled retention of 56.2% (95% CI 51.1-61.3) at 24 months. Filler studies generally reported lower 12-month durability (approximately 31-45%), but were heterogeneous in product type, definitions, and follow-up, limiting formal pooling. Across reporting studies, AFG generally showed favourable aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes, while permanent and semi-permanent fillers were more frequently associated with clinically significant late complications including migration, chronic inflammatory reactions and secondary intervention. Current evidence supports AFG as a well-established option for post-reconstructive breast remodelling in appropriately selected patients, whereas evidence for permanent and semi-permanent fillers remains limited and heterogeneous due to less favourable risk-benefit profiles.
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.