Hybrid Breast Augmentation: Double Benefit or Double Risk? A Comparative Study of 932 Cases

Abstract

Background: The authors propose a hybrid breast augmentation (HBA) method combining implants and fat grafting and explore the outcome and safety through a retrospective, single-center, propensity score–matched, comparative study. Methods: Outcome, satisfaction, and complications were compared between the HBA group (302 cases) and the implant-based breast augmentation (IBA) group (353 cases), and between the HBA group and the autologous fat grafting (AFG) group (277 cases). Results: The mean follow-up period was 31.7 months. After propensity score matching (PSM), 270 cases were matched between the HBA and IBA groups, and 156 cases were matched between the HBA and AFG groups. Compared with the IBA group, HBA achieved higher scores of implant visibility/palpability and upper pole contour with the specialists’ evaluations (before and after PSM; P < 0.05). Regarding patient satisfaction, the scores of softness (before and after PSM), smoothness of the upper pole (before PSM), and overall satisfaction (after PSM) of the HBA group were better (P < 0.05). Implant-related complications occurred at a similar rate. Compared with the AFG group, HBA achieved higher scores of shape (before and after PSM) and symmetry (after PSM) with evaluations by specialists (P < 0.05). The scores of shape, symmetry, and overall satisfaction in the HBA group were better (before and after PSM; P < 0.05). The HBA group showed a lower incidence of palpable cysts, fat necrosis, oil cysts, and fat calcification (before PSM; P < 0.05). Conclusion: When the three techniques were compared objectively, HBA presented better indices of aesthetic outcomes, satisfaction, and acceptable complications rates when compared with IBA and AFG. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.