Breast Fat Grafting vs SVF Breast Augmentation
아래 사실은 모두 두 엔티티 페이지와 그 출처에서 가져온 것입니다. 양쪽이 함께 기록한 항목을 먼저 대조하고, 나머지는 나란히 보여 줍니다.
의료
Breast Fat GraftingBreast fat grafting (fat transfer breast augmentation) uses the patient's own liposuctioned fat to modestly enlarge or reshape the breast without an implant.갱신 2026년 9월 20일의료
SVF Breast AugmentationSVF breast augmentation is breast fat grafting in which the injected fat is enriched with the patient's own stromal vascular fraction.갱신 2026년 9월 21일둘의 관계Breast Fat Grafting — 관련 → SVF Breast Augmentation
공통 항목
양쪽 모두 기록된 항목 2개| 항목 | Breast Fat Grafting | SVF Breast Augmentation |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Fat is taken by liposuction from other parts of the body and injected to enlarge the breasts | Autologous fat grafting in which SVF isolated from part of the aspirated fat is recombined with the remaining fat before injection, turning progenitor-poor aspirated fat into progenitor-rich fat |
| US regulatory status | Following FDA guidance issued in November 2017, autologous fat grafts do not require premarket approval; stromal vascular fraction products receive closer review | Adipose-derived SVF fails the minimal-manipulation criterion (21 CFR 1271.10(a)(1)) and needs an IND or an approved BLA as a drug/biologic |
각각의 사실
둘 중 한쪽에만 기록된 검증된 사실입니다.
Breast Fat Grafting
Typical donor sitesUsually the abdomen or flanks, though fat can be taken from almost anywhere (surgeon quoted by ASPS)
Typical size increaseSurgeon quoted by ASPS: ideal candidate wants half a cup to one cup; a larger increase may take two to three procedures
Listed risksCysts, infection, microcalcification, death of fat cells (necrosis), and some transferred fat leaving the breast area
Pre-expansion optionSurgeons may recommend an external tissue expansion system in the weeks before surgery
Pooled volume retention54% (95% CI 48.5–59.5%) across 25 studies, follow-up 3–36 months
Retention by fat preparation methodCentrifugation 51.5% vs sedimentation 38.7% pooled retention
Oncologic safety evidenceMeta-analysis of 15 studies (8,541 participants): no difference in overall survival, disease-free survival or local recurrence between patients who had fat grafting after breast cancer surgery and controls
1987 professional positionASPRS (predecessor of ASPS) condemned autologous fat injection for breast augmentation over concerns about cancer detection
2009 ASPS Fat Graft Task ForceConcluded that the literature then available showed no association between fat grafting and higher rates of malignancy
Relevant FDA guidanceSame Surgical Procedure Exception under 21 CFR 1271.15(b): Questions and Answers Regarding the Scope of the Exception
Suitable forPeople wanting a relatively small increase in breast size who have enough donor fat (ASPS)
SessionsMore than one session may be needed because part of the graft is resorbed
Imaging noteFat necrosis, cysts and calcifications can appear on mammograms and must be interpreted by a radiologist
SVF Breast Augmentation
First described for cosmetic breast augmentationYoshimura K et al., Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 32(1):48–55 (2008); 40 patients, mean ~270 mL fat injected per breast, final gain 100–200 mL
Complications in original seriesCysts (<12 mm) on MRI in 2 patients; microcalcification on mammogram in 2 patients at 24 months; 1 case of sternal fibrosis
Breast augmentation meta-analysis (Li & Chen)6 studies, 353 patients: CAL had higher fat survival (SMD 1.79, 95% CI 0.28–3.31); complications did not differ significantly (OR 1.34); the SVF-enriched subgroup showed no survival difference
Meta-analysis across recipient sites (Sutar et al.)15 studies: graft survival favored enriched grafts (SMD 2.44), with very high heterogeneity (I² = 97.19%); benefit was context-dependent
US court ruling on same-day SVFNinth Circuit (Sept 2024) held SVF procedures do not qualify for the same-surgical-procedure exemption; the Supreme Court declined review on 2025-10-15
Korea: Advanced Regenerative Bio Act amendmentEffective 2025-02-21: regenerative-medicine treatment allowed only for serious, rare or intractable diseases, at designated institutions, with review-committee approval of treatment plans
Reported safety concernsCyst formation 6.9% with automated vs 1.6% with manual isolation in cited data; theoretical oncogenic concern from VEGF/FGF signalling; long-term oncologic data insufficient
Method standardizationNo standardized CAL protocol; multiple isolation systems in use (e.g., Celution, Medikhan, Fatstem, Mystem)
Reported outcome (SC301-authored, 2023)Average injected volume 162.35 mL (left breast); retention 78.65% (3 mo), 77.17% (6 mo), 77.48% (18 mo, n=102)
Reported outcome (SC301-authored, 2020)In 105 patients, engraftment 85.1% (1 mo), 75.1% (3 mo), 73.7% (6 mo); patients receiving >60 million ADSC had 90.5% vs 68.9% for <60 million
Evidence levelSingle-center, provider-authored series; no independent randomized controlled data identified as of 2026-09