Abstract

Fat grafting is commonly undertaken as a third-stage procedure in patients with staged implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). However, fat grafting performed during second-stage expander/implant exchange provides faster results without an additional procedure and associated risks (Patel et al., 2020). We previously demonstrated that fat grafting during second-stage expander/implant exchange did not increase clinical complications (Patel et al., 2020). As a corollary, this study investigates patients' satisfaction with second- versus third-stage fat grafting to help establish a set of best practices for the timing of fat grafting in such patients.A review of PubMed/MEDLINE databases (2010-2022) was performed to identify articles investigating the quality of life in patients undergoing second- or third-stage fat grafting after IBR. BREAST-Q scores were pooled using random-effects modeling and the DerSimonian-Laird method. Post-hoc sensitivity analyses were completed using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. The Haldane-Anscombe correction was used for outcomes with low counts. All study analyses adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Six studies (216 patients) were included. Pooled random-effects modeling demonstrated no significant changes in BREAST-Q satisfaction with outcome scores when comparing patients who received second- versus third-stage fat grafting (p = 0.178) with results robust to sensitivity analyses. In addition, pooled analyses of the available data demonstrated that second-stage fat grafting did not increase downstream revision surgery needs compared to third-stage fat grafting.In combination with our prior work, this meta-analysis suggests that second-stage fat grafting provides not only equivalent but improved clinical and quality of life outcomes with fewer procedures in patients undergoing expander/IBR.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.09.026

View details for PubMedID 37797375