ReviewInsights into imaging2026
A review of radiological characteristics and patterns of fat necrosis after different autologous breast surgery techniques.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this systematic review was to compare the radiological characteristics of fat necrosis distribution and morphology of tissue flaps versus autologous fat transfer (AFT) on ultrasound (US), mammography (MG), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in order to improve diagnostic accuracy and guide treatment decisions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases, identifying studies published after 2005. Eligible studies included female patients undergoing breast surgery using flaps or AFT, with fat necrosis assessed on US, MG, or MRI.
resultsSeventeen studies (13 AFT, 4 flap surgery) were included. Imaging was performed 1 to 240 months postoperatively. The mean prevalence of fat necrosis ranged from 12.5 to 23.6% for studies on flap surgery (n = 4), versus 7.3 to 82.9% for AFT (n = 5). On US, fat necrosis exhibited diverse echogenicity and cystic components often without vascularity, for both flap surgery and AFT. MG characteristics included radiolucent oil cysts with calcifications. MRI showed nonenhancing hypointense lesions with hyperintense borders on T1-weighted and T2-weighted fat-suppressed images. After flap surgery, fat necrosis was predominantly located at the peripheral margins of the flap, whereas in AFT it was more diffusely distributed.
conclusionRadiological characteristics of fat necrosis are generally comparable between tissue flaps and AFT, although a difference was observed in the prevalence and distribution of fat necrosis between the two techniques. However, literature is limited, and additional research is needed to be able to refine the radiological definition of fat necrosis. KEY POINTS: Identifying radiological differences between fat necrosis in tissue flaps and autologous fat transfer may improve diagnosis by distinguishing typical from atypical fat necrosis presentations. Radiological characteristics of fat necrosis are largely comparable between flaps and autologous fat transfer, although imaging features evolve over time and distribution patterns might differ. Understanding radiological characteristics of fat necrosis across breast surgery techniques is essential for accurate diagnosis, guiding treatment decisions, and reducing biopsies and patient distress. Distribution patterns of fat necrosis may aid in improving diagnostic consistency.
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.