Suppr超能文献

隆胸手术中使用乳房植入物还是脂肪填充?一项随机、开放标签、对照试验。

Breast Implants or Lipofilling in Augmentation Mammoplasty? A Randomized, Open-Label, Controlled Trial.

作者信息

Gentile Pietro

机构信息

Department of Surgical Science, Medical School, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tor Vergata" University, 00133, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Sep 4. doi: 10.1007/s00266-025-05204-0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The author presents his own experience using breast implants (BIs) or fat grafting, commonly called lipofilling (LPF), to correct breast hypoplasia.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the aesthetic results obtained in a study group (SG) using BIs in breast hypoplasia correction with those of a control group (CG) treated with LPF, analyzing the influence of breast and chest deformities (tuberous breast, breast volume differences/asymmetries, nipple-areola complex asymmetry, pectus excavatum, and carinatum) in the outcomes.

METHODS

A randomized, open-label controlled study was performed. A total of 95 patients affected by breast hypoplasia (SG) were treated with BI, comparing results with the CG (n = 90) treated with LPF. The pre-operative analysis was conducted through anamnesis (considering also the patient's expectations), clinical and photographic assessment, and an instrumental evaluation based on magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound. Post-operative follow-up occurred at 1, 2, 4 weeks, 3, 6, 12 months, and then annually until the fourth year.

RESULTS

87,5% (n = 83) of SG patients treated with BI showed excellent aesthetic outcomes after 12 months compared with the CG patients treated with LPF, who showed the same results in 70% (n = 63) of cases. Breast augmentation maintenance in the SG was significantly higher than in the CG (p < .0001). However, more natural results were reported in the CG than in the SG (p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

BI and LPF were safe and effective in this controlled trial. CG's patients displayed more natural results, obtaining a better pectus excavatum correction, while SG's patients showed more evident and lasting results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

摘要

背景

作者介绍了自己使用乳房植入物(BI)或脂肪移植(通常称为脂肪填充,LPF)来矫正乳房发育不全的经验。

目的

比较在乳房发育不全矫正中使用BI的研究组(SG)与接受LPF治疗的对照组(CG)所获得的美学效果,分析乳房和胸部畸形(乳房畸形、乳房体积差异/不对称、乳头乳晕复合体不对称、漏斗胸和鸡胸)对结果的影响。

方法

进行了一项随机、开放标签的对照研究。共有95例受乳房发育不全影响的患者(SG)接受了BI治疗,并将结果与接受LPF治疗的CG(n = 90)进行比较。术前分析通过问诊(也考虑患者的期望)、临床和摄影评估以及基于磁共振成像、乳腺X线摄影和超声的仪器评估进行。术后随访在1、2、4周、3、6、12个月进行,然后每年进行一次,直至第四年。

结果

与接受LPF治疗的CG患者相比,接受BI治疗的SG患者中有87.5%(n = 83)在12个月后显示出优异的美学效果,而接受LPF治疗的CG患者中这一比例为70%(n = 63)。SG组的隆胸维持率显著高于CG组(p <.0001)。然而,CG组报告的效果比SG组更自然(p <.0001)。

结论

在这项对照试验中,BI和LPF是安全有效的。CG组患者的效果更自然,漏斗胸矫正效果更好,而SG组患者的效果更明显且持久。

证据水平I:本杂志要求作者为每篇文章指定证据水平。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或在线作者指南www.springer.com/00266

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验