Autologous Fat Grafting and Injectable Fillers for Post-Reconstructive Breast Remodelling: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis

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 postreconstructive 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 I statistic, and publicationbias 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; I = 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 patientreported 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JPRAS Open
Published
2026-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2026.03.034
Primary Topic
Mesenchymal stem cell research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Autologous Fat Grafting and Injectable Fillers for Post-Reconstructive Breast Remodelling: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis

IA Shafik, M.S.E. Mohammed, M.M. Abdelfatah, A.Y. Ahmed
JPRAS Open
Mesenchymal stem cell research
article

Autologous Fat Grafting and Injectable Fillers for Post-Reconstructive Breast Remodelling: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis

IA Shafik, M.S.E. Mohammed, M.M. Abdelfatah, A.Y. Ahmed
article en

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 postreconstructive 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 I statistic, and publicationbias 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; I = 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 patientreported 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.

JPRAS Open
Cairo University hospitals (EG)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Mesenchymal stem cell research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.