Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a study group (SG) regarding the use of FG-e-ASCs and also FG-e-PRP in breast augmentation for aesthetic improvement, comparing the results with a control group (CG) and at the same time the safety and efficacy of a study group (SG-1) regarding the use of FG-e-ASCs and FG-e-PRP in breast reconstruction, comparing the results with a control group (CG-1). Additionally, the same protocol (SG-2 vs CG-2) was applied for face soft tissue defects evaluation.
The mechanical minimal manipulation of fat was showed.
Introduction: Fat grafts enhanced with adipose-derived stem cells (FG-e-ASCs) and with Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) have been used in outcomes of radiotherapy after mastectomy, breast soft tissue defects, ulcers, and loss of substance. The author presents his experience using FG-e-ASCs and FG-e-PRP in breast augmentation, breast reconstruction and for soft tissue defects.
Materials / method: 46 patients affected by breast hypoplasia (SG) were treated with FG-e-ASCs, comparing results with those of a CG (n = 30) treated with fat graft not enhanced (FG-ne-ASCs).
121 patients (SG-1) who were affected by the outcomes of breast oncoplastic surgery were treated with FG-e-ASC.
33 patients (SG-2) who were affected by the face soft tissue defects were treated with FG-e-PRP, comparing results with those of a CG-2 (n = 30) treated with fat graft not enhanced (FG-ne-PRP).
Results: The patients treated, for breast augmentation (SG), with FG-e-ASCs showed (through MRI) 58% maintenance of fat volume after 3 years compared with the patients of the CG treated with FG-ne-ASCs, who showed 29% maintenance. The patients treated, for breast reconstruction (SG-1), with FG-e-ASCs showed (through MRI) 51% maintenance of fat volume after 3 years compared with the patients of the CG-1 treated with FG-ne-ASCs, who showed 21% maintenance.
The patients treated, for face soft tissue defects (SG-2), with FG-e-PRP showed (through MRI) 63% maintenance of fat volume after 3 years vs 21%CG-2.
Conclusion: The use of FG-e-ASCs and FG-e-PRP was safe and effective in this series of cases performed.
Disclosures
Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No
Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No
Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No
Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No
This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability