Are We Speaking the Same Language? A Systematic Review on the Use of Consistent Language in Reporting Fat Necrosis in Autologous Fat Grafting of the Breast

• Published in: Aesthetic plastic surgery Vol. 48; no. 7; pp. 1403 - 1416
• Main Authors: Bhoopalam, Myan, Atayeva, Rena, Tiongco, Rafael Felix P., Heron, Matthew J., Girard, Alisa O., Er, Seray, Aslami, Zohra V., Seal, Stella M., Cooney, Carisa M., Broderick, Kristen P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.04.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Necrosis; Otorhinolaryngology; Plastic Surgery; Review; Breast augmentation; FDA; Breast reconstruction; Breast; Fat necrosis; Fat grafting; Autologous fat grafting
• ISSN: 0364-216X; 1432-5241
• DOI: 10.1007/s00266-023-03568-9

Background Autologous fat grafting is a widely adopted approach to optimize outcomes in breast reconstruction and augmentation. Although fat necrosis is a well-known consequence of autologous fat grafting, it remains inconsistently defined in the literature. In late 2014, the Food and Drug Administration released a draft guidance to restrict future autologous fat grafting—a statement that was permissively modified in late 2017. In the context of evolving guidelines and autologous fat grafting outcome data, the language and descriptions of fat necrosis are inconsistent in the literature. Methods Five databases were queried for studies reporting fat necrosis following autologous fat grafting for breast reconstruction or augmentation from inception to August 11, 2022. Studies were temporally stratified according to released FDA guidelines: pre-2015, 2015–2017, and 2018–2022. Results Sixty-one articles met inclusion criteria. Prior to 2015, 6 of 21 studies (28.6%) offered clear definitions of fat necrosis. In contrast, the 2015–2017 period demonstrated an absence of clear fat necrosis definitions (0/13 studies, p = 0.03). Though the 2018–2022 period exhibited a rise in annual publications compared with the pre-2015 period (5.4 vs. 1.9, respectively, p = 0.04), this was not matched by a rise in clear fat necrosis reporting (14.8% studies, p = 0.45). Across all periods, only 16.4% of articles offered clear definitions, which exhibited wide heterogeneity. Conclusion Despite the increasing popularity of autologous fat grafting, fat necrosis remains inconsistently defined and described, especially in the context of changing FDA guidelines. This limits the reliable interpretation and application of the current literature reporting fat necrosis outcomes. Level of Evidence IV 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 .