4.6 Article

Clinical Analyses of Clustered Microcalcifications after Autologous Fat Injection for Breast Augmentation

Journal

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 127, Issue 4, Pages 1669-1673

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318208d1e4

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Autologous fat injection for breast augmentation has been disputed with regard to its complications for many years, especially regarding calcifications, most of which present with benign features. In previous studies, clustered microcalcifications were not observed after fat injection for breast augmentation, which are usually regarded as malignant calcifications. Methods: From July of 1999 to December of 2009, autologous fat injection for breast augmentation was performed for both breasts in 48 patients. Eight patients with clustered microcalcifications found by mammography after surgery were analyzed retrospectively. For the nonpalpable breast lesions in three patients, the clustered microcalcifications were resected with the help of needle localized breast biopsy. The palpable lump, including clustered microcalcifications, was resected 1 cm away from its border in the other patients. All of the specimens were submitted to pathologic examination. Results: The digitized mammographic films of eight of 48 patients (16.7 percent) showed clustered microcalcifications after autologous fat injection, which were highly suspected of being breast carcinoma microcalcifications, whereas all pathologic examinations indicated fat necroses. Conclusions: Clustered microcalcifications can be found after autologous fat injection for breast augmentation, which cannot be distinguished from malignancy. The mammographic confusion constitutes the problem rather than the success of the procedure itself, and the method should continue to be prohibited. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 127: 1669, 2011.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available