Next Article in Journal
Sex Differences in Predictors of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Risk Among Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study in Colombian University Students
Previous Article in Journal
Clinical Associations with Hospital Escalation Among COVID-19 Patients Receiving Remdesivir in a Hospital-at-Home Service: A Real-World Cohort Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Pre-Pectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction with Post-Mastectomy Radiation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 14
Issue 19
10.3390/jcm14196737
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

State of Research on Tissue Engineering with 3D Printing for Breast Reconstruction

by
Gioacchino D. De Sario Velasquez
1,
Yousef Tanas
2,
Francesca Taraballi
3,
Tanya Herzog
3 and
Aldona Spiegel
2,*
1
University of Maryland Medical Center, 22 South Greene St., Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
2
Institute for Reconstructive Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
3
Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(19), 6737; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14196737
Submission received: 1 May 2025 / Revised: 26 August 2025 / Accepted: 18 September 2025 / Published: 24 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Evolution of Breast Reconstruction: Current Techniques, Advances and Future Directions)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Three-dimensional (3-D) printing paired with tissue-engineering strategies promises to overcome the volume, contour, and donor-site limitations of traditional breast reconstruction. Patient-specific, bioabsorbable constructs could enable one-stage procedures that better restore aesthetics and sensation. Methods: A narrative review was conducted following a targeted PubMed search (inception—April 2025) using combinations of “breast reconstruction,” “tissue engineering,” “3-D printing,” and “scaffold.” Pre-clinical and clinical studies describing polymer-based chambers or scaffolds for breast mound or nipple regeneration were eligible. Data was extracted on scaffold composition, animal/human model, follow-up, and volumetric or histological outcomes. Results: Forty-three publications met inclusion criteria: 35 pre-clinical, six early-phase clinical, and two device reports. The predominant strategy (68% of studies) combined a vascularized fat flap with a custom 3-D-printed chamber to guide adipose expansion. Poly-lactic acid, poly-glyceric acid, poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid, poly-4-hydroxybutyrate, polycarbonate, and polycaprolactone were the principal polymers investigated; only poly-4-hydroxybutyrate and poly-lactic acid have been tested for nipple scaffolds. Bioabsorbable devices supported up to 140% volume gain in large-animal models, but even the best human series (≤18 months) achieved sub-mastectomy volumes and reported high seroma rates. Mechanical testing showed elastic moduli (5–80 MPa) compatible with native breast tissue, yet long-term load-bearing data are scarce. Conclusions: Current evidence demonstrates biocompatibility and incremental adipose regeneration, but clinical translation is constrained by small sample sizes, incomplete resorption profiles, and regulatory uncertainty. Standardized large-animal protocols, head-to-head polymer comparisons, and early human feasibility trials with validated outcome measures are essential next steps. Nevertheless, the convergence of 3-D printing and tissue engineering represents a paradigm shift that could ultimately enable bespoke, single-stage breast reconstruction with superior aesthetic and functional outcomes.

1. Introduction

Breast cancer presents an important challenge to global healthcare and significantly impacts on the quality of life of countless woman, necessitating advancements in treatment and post-surgical care. Within this framework, breast reconstruction emerges as a beacon of hope, offering a path to regain physical and emotional well-being. While substantial strides have been made in reconstruction techniques, a gap persists in accessibility, affordability, and safety, underscoring a pressing need for innovation and improvement.
In 2020, the U.S. reported 239,612 new female breast cancer cases with 42,273 deaths, equating to 119 new cases and 19 deaths per 100,000 women [1]. Beyond its devastating health impact, breast cancer imposes a significant financial burden on the U.S. healthcare system. A recent nationwide study revealed that cancer patients experience almost 4 times higher mean expenditures per person ($16,346) compared to those without cancer ($4484) [2]. This financial strain is mirrored in the field of breast reconstruction, where the costs of current methods, coupled with the need for specialized surgical skills, may sometimes place these critical procedures difficult to obtain for patients who lack insurance coverage or must travel long distances to microsurgical centers. Although breast reconstruction is generally covered by U.S. insurance plans (including after passage of the WHCRA) gaps in access persist for uninsured or under-insured patients and in settings where surgeons decline Medicaid/Medicare or charity cases.
Moreover, the burden of breast cancer transcends beyond the numbers, profoundly affecting women’s quality of life. Survivors often struggle in their cognitive, sexual, and emotional well-being, underscoring the broader challenges that come with recovery [3]. In this context, breast reconstruction after mastectomy is a key element in the journey towards recovery, improving emotional functioning and social functioning scores, especially in younger patients [4].
Current options—alloplastic and autologous—each carry their own set of complications. Alloplastic or implant-based breast reconstruction can lead to complications such as capsular contracture, implant failure, rupture, and cancer [5]. The FDA has reported new cases of cancers, including squamous cell carcinoma and lymphomas, in the capsule surrounding breast implants, distinct from the previously recognized Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) [6,7].
Alternatively, autologous breast reconstruction has been associated with higher satisfaction compared to implant-based reconstruction [8]. Still, patients with autologous breast reconstruction may suffer complications including flap failure, mastectomy flap necrosis, donor site morbidity, and emergent reoperations [9,10]. Further, autologous breast reconstruction is often challenging, requiring highly trained microsurgeons and microsurgery-equipped hospitals, which are often lacking in developing countries [11,12].
Autologous fat grafting for breast reconstruction is globally accepted, with its safety and efficacy confirmed by many clinical studies [13,14]. Nevertheless, fat grafting for breast reconstruction is constrained by the limited volume it can provide and the inconsistent retention rates, often necessitating multiple sessions to attain a satisfactory final volume [15,16].
With the challenges posed by conventional methods, the medical community has eagerly sought innovative solutions. The fields of tissue engineering and 3D printing are two domains that have shown promise in revolutionizing medical treatments across various sectors [17,18]. These innovative methods offer the possibility of reconstructions tailored to an individual’s anatomy, using the patient’s own cells and host response towards tissue regeneration, thereby promising better functional and aesthetic outcomes [19].
With the ability to customize the structure, composition, and mechanical properties of biomaterials, 3D printing has opened doors for the development of implants that mimic the natural extracellular matrix, facilitating cellular integration and tissue regeneration [20]. Furthermore, such advancements might pave the way for improved functional and aesthetic outcomes in breast reconstruction.
This narrative review focuses on the latest developments in tissue engineering and 3D printing for breast reconstruction. We aim to identify current research gaps, guide future studies in this domain, and critically evaluate the potential of these emerging technologies to transform breast reconstruction procedures in medical practice.

2. Biomaterials and Tissue Bioengineering for Breast Reconstruction

2.1. The Current State of Research on Reconstructive Materials

The field of tissue engineering has seen a noticeable surge recently, particularly in the development of ideal biomaterials for breast reconstruction. In the past, substances like hydrogels, ceramics, and biopolymers showed great promise for fostering cellular growth and directing tissue rejuvenation [21]. The primary objective of research has been to develop materials that mimic the extracellular matrix found naturally in breast tissue while promoting cell adhesion, development, and specialization [22,23].
Tissue engineering combines cells, biomaterials, and advanced methodologies to develop biological structures that both mirror and augment the inherent functionalities of human organs and tissues [24]. Over time, this domain has significantly advanced, now emphasizing not just the regeneration of in vivo tissues without innate self-repair capabilities, but also the creation of in vitro models that illuminate cellular dynamics [25,26,27,28]. These models also provide platforms for cutting-edge applications like organs-on-a-chip and medication screening [29,30].
In the world of 3D printing microvascular networks, current methodologies exhibit limitations in precisely emulating the native cellular composition and functionality of vascular structures. Additionally, these techniques often lack the capacity to control hierarchical dimensions accurately [31]. Consequently, the complete replication of native microvascular networks via 3D printing remains unfeasible at this juncture.

2.2. Role of Biodegradable Materials in Tissue Engineering

Biodegradable materials are of particular interest in tissue engineering for breast reconstruction. Over time, a process of gradual degradation ensues, concomitantly with the progressive integration of native tissues during the regenerative phase, removing the necessity for subsequent surgical intervention aimed at implant removal. This feature allows the preservation of the regenerated tissue’s structural integrity while minimizing the long-term complications linked to non-biodegradable components [32]. The degradation rate, however, must be carefully tuned to match the rate of tissue regeneration [33].

2.3. Advantages and Limitations of Biodegradable Materials

While biodegradable materials present an exciting frontier for breast tissue engineering, striking a balance between their evident benefits and inherent challenges remains critical. One key advantage is that, unlike traditional implants, they are designed to be reabsorbed by the body, avoiding the consequences of long-term inflammation of permanent implants [34,35].
Although surgical insertion of biodegradable materials can still lead to surgical infections, researchers have suggested that biodegradable materials carry a lower risk [36]. The degradation rate of these materials needs careful calibration to provide sufficient support without triggering complications. Other concerns include the potential loss of mechanical strength over time and the long-term impact of degradation byproducts in the body [37].

3. Preclinical Studies on Reconstructive Materials with Tissue Engineering

Materials and Methods

We performed a review of the available literature of preclinical research in tissue engineering for breast reconstruction in PubMed on 16 April 2025 using the following search strategy: “(“Mammaplasty”[Mesh]) AND “Tissue Engineering”[Mesh].” The search yielded 39 results published between 2001 and 2025, and 10 articles were deemed relevant and are reviewed below. Another search was performed to review the current state of research, especially for 3D printing tissue engineering methods for breast reconstruction. The search was conducted in PubMed on 20 August 2023 using the following search strategy: (“Printing, Three-Dimensional”[Mesh]) AND (“Mammaplasty”[Mesh]). This time, the search resulted in only 9 results, and only 2 were found relevant and were targeted to nipple reconstruction.
Overview of preclinical research in tissue engineering for breast reconstruction (Table 1).
As breast reconstruction techniques evolve, preclinical studies have seen significant advancements [38,39,40,41,42,43]. Nonetheless, when delving into tissue bioengineering specific to breast reconstruction, there is a noticeable scarcity of published research.
Table 1. Overview of preclinical research in tissue engineering for breast reconstruction.
Table 1. Overview of preclinical research in tissue engineering for breast reconstruction.
Author, YearStudy ObjectiveMethodologyMaterials UsedKey FindingsLimitations
[44]Examine co-culture of mammary cells and adipocytes in 3D collagenHuman mammary epithelial cells and preadipocytes co-cultured in 3D collagen gel matrix †Collagen gel matrixBoth cell types expanded through multiple subcultures, maintained normal cell distribution and growth patternsLimited to in vitro environment
[45]Enhance adipocyte survival for lipo-injectionSelective in vitro culturing of preadipocytes †PreadipocytesIncreased proliferation and survival in cell culturesLimited to in vitro environment
[46]Study stromal-epithelial interactionsCocultures of human mammary epithelial cell line (MCF10A) and human mammary fibroblasts embedded in type I collagen or mixed Matrigel-collagen matrix †MCF10A, fibroblasts, type I collagen, Matrigel-collagen matrixFormation of ductal and alveolar structures confirmed histologicallyLimited to in vitro environment
[47]Upscale small-animal adipose tissue-engineering models to a large animal (pig)Large-volume (78.5 mL) subcutaneous chambers enclosing fat flap in pigs ‡Dome-shaped perforated polycarbonate TEC, poly(L-lactide-co-glycolide) spongeSignificant fat flap growth up to 56.5 mL from initial 5 mL by 22 weeksLimited translation to human models
[48]Evaluate longevity of tissue-engineered adipose tissueChambers implanted in mice groins, filled with Matrigel and heparin; varied configurations (autograft, open, fat flap) ‡Matrigel, heparin, autologous fatHigher adipose tissue volumes and vascularization, especially in fat flap groupAnimal model; limited human applicability
[49]Generate adipose tissue from vascularized fat flap inside a chamberRat model, chambers with or without PLGA scaffolds ‡Polycarbonate chambers, PLGA scaffoldsSignificant adipose volume increase in all chamber groupsAnimal model; unclear mechanism for human scaling
[50]Evaluate long-term stability of chamber-generated adipose tissueRat model, perforated vs. nonperforated chambers ‡Polycarbonate chambersVolume growth, greater in perforated chambersAnimal model limitations, unclear scalability to humans
[51]Assess external suspension device for adipose tissue growthRabbit model, external suspension vs. traditional chamber ‡External suspension device (negative pressure)Larger volume growth with external suspension (81 mL vs. 31 mL over 36 weeks)Animal model, device usability in human scenarios unclear
[52]Effects of irradiation on fat flap growthRat model, bioresorbable PLGA-based TEC implantation; irradiation pre- or post-implantation ‡PLGA-based bioresorbable TECRadiation reduced fat flap growth, introduced fibrosis and histological changes; viable as adjunct in breast reconstruction despite irradiationAnimal model; limited clinical translation
[53]Influence of TEC design on adipose tissue growthRat and pig models, TECs (perforated vs. nonperforated), 3D-printed bioresorbable scaffolds ‡PLA (rat), PGA (pig) scaffoldsPerforated TEC superior, rapid adipose growth, bioresorbable TEC achieved >140% volume growth in pigsAnimal models; unclear full clinical translation potential
[54]Evaluate nipple projection retention using 3D scaffoldsNude rat model, 3D-printed scaffolds filled with human cartilage ‡3D-printed P4HB scaffolds, human costal cartilageImproved nipple projection and tissue growth, regenerative responseSmall animal model; uncertain scalability
[55]Preserve nipple geometry using scaffolded cartilageNude rat model, external scaffolds with autologous cartilage ‡3D-printed PLA external scaffolds, autologous cartilageMaintained superior nipple volume, viable cartilage tissue with biomechanical similarity to human nipplesAnimal model; limited human applicability
[56]Enhance fat graft retention with scaffold supportNude mice model, fat graft injected into scaffold ‡3D-printed polycaprolactone scaffoldsImproved graft retention, angiogenesis observed; superior cellular preservation initiallyShort-term animal study
[57]Scaffold pre-vascularization for breast reconstructionMinipig model, pre-vascularized scaffold compared to immediate grafting ‡Polycaprolactone scaffoldsPre-vascularized scaffolds improved adipose tissue retention significantlyLimited animal study duration, scalability unclear
[58]Hybrid scaffold approach to improve fat graft survivalMale mice model, hybrid devices combining implants + scaffolds + inguinal fat grafts ‡Polycaprolactone scaffolds, electrospun nanofibers, silicone implantsImproved adipocyte morphology at early stage; limited overall retention benefitsSmall animal model; unclear human translation
Legend: † = in vitro study, ‡ = in vivo study.
Our first search revealed several efforts aimed at understanding and enhancing tissue growth in vitro. Early work by Huss et al. showed that co-culturing human mammary epithelial cells with pre-adipocytes in 3-D collagen supports breast-like tissue formation; a follow-up study found selectively expanded pre-adipocytes proliferated and survived better, suggesting a route to improve fat-graft retention. Krause et al. extended this by culturing mammary epithelial cells with fibroblasts in a 3-D matrix, producing ductal-alveolar structures within weeks. Subsequent in vivo studies shifted to polycarbonate tissue-engineering chambers: in a porcine model, a 5 mL groin fat flap placed in a perforated dome chamber grew to ≈56 mL over 22 weeks, and the volume remained stable for another 22 weeks after chamber removal, even when the construct was transposed to a submammary pocket [44,45,46,47].
Although most of these pre-clinical studies were not explicitly framed around breast reconstruction, their data are highly transferable. In mice, three Matrigel-filled chamber designs—autograft, open, and fat-flap—were followed for a year: chambers contiguous with vascular fat (fat-flap) generated the largest, well-vascularized adipose masses, while autografts showed more fibrosis and all configurations contained significantly more fat than at 6 weeks. In two rat experiments, Dolderer et al. implanted pedicled fat flaps in solid or perforated polycarbonate chambers (with or without PLGA scaffold); every chambered flap gained volume over 20 weeks, perforated shells outperformed solid ones, and ungrafted controls remained static. Newly formed tissue was predominantly vascularized fat and connective stroma, with minimal glandular elements [48,49,50]. Manufacturing details for the polycarbonate TECs were omitted, though PLGA scaffolds were made by thermally induced phase separation.
Jinlin et al. replaced TECs with an external negative-pressure suspension device: in rabbits, flap volume rose from 5 mL to 81 mL in 36 weeks (vs. 31 mL with chambers) while maintaining similar histology. At Lille, 3-D-printed PLGA TECs in rats tolerated irradiation, but post- or pre-implant radiation curtailed fat growth and increased fibrosis, whereas non-irradiated controls enlarged flaps substantially. TEC design also matters: in rats, perforated PLA shells grew fat 3–5× faster than solid ones, and in pigs a bioresorbable PGA TEC boosted flap volume > 140% by day 90 without systemic inflammation. Despite these advances, chamber-based approaches still yield volumes below full breast dimensions, limiting clinical applicability for larger reconstructions [49,50,51,52,53]. From our second search, only two studies were found to be relevant, both targeting nipple reconstruction. A 1 × 1 cm domed P4HB nipple scaffold packed with minced costal cartilage kept projection and volume for 6 months in nude rats; an internal lattice sped scaffold resorption [54]. Using a PLA sleeve around processed costal cartilage similarly preserved nipple size and native-like mechanics at 3 months [55]. Bao et al.’s 1.5 mm porous PCL mesh boosted fat-graft volume retention and early angiogenesis in mice over 8 weeks [56]. Together, 3-D-printed scaffolds clearly outperform traditional nipple or fat-graft methods [54,55,56]. Pre-vascularization helps large grafts: in minipigs, 75-cc PCL hemispheres left empty for 2 weeks then fat-filled showed 48% adipose area vs. 40% when fat was injected immediately, illustrating center-out angiogenic limits [57]. A mouse study of a 3-D-printed PCL sleeve coated with electrospun nanofibers on silicone implants similarly found better early adipocyte morphology—though capsule thickness and volume retention were unchanged—emphasizing ECM-like surface cues [58]. Evaluation of biodegradable materials in preclinical models: biocompatibility, degradation kinetics and biomechanical properties (Table 2).
Biocompatibility is a common concern in tissue engineering; hence, studies must ensure that introduced materials interact safely with host tissues. For breast reconstruction and other medical uses, materials must be both physiologically and immunologically compatible to prevent adverse reactions and ensure natural integration.
Many biomaterials used in medical implants and regenerative medicine often develop foreign body reactions upon implantation [59]. The foreign body reaction to biomaterials progresses through five phases: protein adsorption, acute and chronic inflammation, and the formation of foreign body giant cells and fibrous capsules [60].
Biodegradable materials are promising because they allow the creation of devices with the ability to provide temporary structure and mechanical support as the tissue regenerates until device resorption, minimizing long-term foreign body presence [61].
Much has been researched about the use of biodegradable materials for drug delivery systems [62], orthopedic devices [63,64], stents [65], and wound healing [66,67,68]. However, only a few bioabsorbable polymers have been tested for breast reconstruction, including PLA, PGA, PLGA, P4HB, and poly(d,l)-lactide polymer.
PLA is an aliphatic polyester with degradation products of lactic acid, typically degrading over 6 to 12 months. It is prized for good mechanical properties but can be brittle and produce inflammatory acidic products upon degradation [69,70]. PGA is used widely in sutures and degrades into glycolic acid within weeks to a few months. It is recognized for its strength and biocompatibility, though its quick degradation can sometimes pose challenges [71,72]. PLGA, a mix of PLA and PGA, degrades to release both lactic and glycolic acids over weeks to several months. It is versatile compared to PGA and PLA since the composition ratio can control its resorption time [73]. P4HB is known for flexibility and strength, degrading into 4-hydroxybutyric acid in about 12 to 18 months; however, unlike other resorbable polyesters such as PLA, PGA, and PLGA, its production is complex since it is exclusively synthesized in the fermentation process; therefore, it is less readily available and more costly [74,75]. Finally, Poly(D, L]-lactide combines two PLA stereoisomers and shares a similar degradation rate and product with PLA; its blend ratio influences its properties but can produce inflammatory products [76,77].
The degradation rate of biomaterials plays a pivotal role in determining the success of tissue regeneration. For breast reconstruction, it is paramount that the material degrades at a rate that allows the concurrent growth and maturation of the new tissue, ensuring the maintenance of structural integrity. Rapid degradation could lead to tissue collapse and inadequate support. In contrast, slow degradation might hinder natural tissue formation, causing prolonged foreign body reactions or fibrotic encapsulation.
A developmental scaffold should be biocompatible with controlled degradation, have a 3D interconnected pore design, offer structural support, and promote positive cell interactions [78].
One common issue found in the preclinical studies for breast reconstruction using 3D printing is the mechanical properties of the TEC or scaffolds per se, as they are made of stiff materials, which do not align with the mechanical properties of the breasts.
Breast tissue, being highly vascular and glandular, has specific needs for elasticity, sensation, and aesthetics [79]. Therefore, biodegradable materials for breast reconstruction should ideally emulate the biomechanical properties of native breast tissue to meet patients’ needs.
  • Gaps in preclinical testing: lack of specific preclinical studies on reconstructive materials for breast reconstruction and Implications.
The rapid advancements in reconstructive surgery, particularly breast reconstruction, are commendable. However, a significant concern arises from the lack of comprehensive preclinical studies targeting reconstructive materials. Without abundant reproducible and robust preclinical research, the understanding of how these materials might interact within the body remains limited, keeping the door closed to potential unanticipated outcomes.
The implications of this data gap hinder clinicians from understanding the safety and the overall behavior of the materials and their consequences. Biocompatibility and integration with native tissues are primary concerns when implanting any new reconstructive material. The body’s response must be gauged to predict long-term outcomes [80,81].
Beyond safety, the performance of these materials, like their aesthetic results or longevity, remains unpredictable. Ethically, exposing patients to potential risks without comprehensive prior testing challenges the medical principle of “do no harm” [82,83].
The varied levels of success rate documented in preclinical studies for breast reconstruction regarding the utilization of tissue-engineered scaffolds or chambers, whether 3D printed or not, as highlighted in earlier cited studies, amplifies a critical issue of publication bias. The underrepresentation of studies yielding negative results could lead to the misallocation of funding in project investments and obstruct the exploration of alternative, potentially more effective approaches for breast reconstruction [84].
In essence, while innovation in breast reconstruction is crucial, it must be underpinned by rigorous preclinical testing to ensure superior outcomes, maintain ethical standards, and empower informed decision-making.

4. Clinical Indicators for Reconstructive Materials

4.1. Identification and Evaluation of Clinical Indicators of Success for Breast Reconstruction

Clinical indicators are measurable metrics used to assess the quality and outcomes of healthcare services. These can relate to the structure, process, or results of care. They serve as benchmarks that guide healthcare professionals and organizations in enhancing care quality. They must be valid, sensitive, and clearly defined to gauge healthcare performance effectively. While optimal indicators are evidence-based, some may be based on professional consensus [85].
The gold standard for evaluating clinical outcomes in breast reconstruction is the use of patient-reported outcome instruments such as the BREAST-Q, which is widely used to assess the impact of breast surgeries on patient satisfaction and quality of life [86,87,88]. However, because it relies on patient input, it cannot be applied in preclinical research, highlighting a key limitation in bridging preclinical models with patient-centered outcomes. Currently, there is no standardized objective measurement tool for breast reconstruction assessment [89]. Some surgeons rely on the overall assessment of objective indicators to assess reconstruction success. These indicators include survival, complications, and aesthetic outcomes such as breast symmetry, volume, color differences, scar appearance, and nipple-areolar complex [89,90,91].
Regarding preclinical research of reconstructive materials, most studies primarily focus on assessing fat volume retention/growth. However, there is oversight of some other aesthetic indicators other than volume, such as symmetry, color differences, and scar appearance.
On the other hand, bioabsorbable materials hold a significant advantage of their potential to gear toward 1 stage surgery, consequently decreasing the hospital burdens and exposure to the inherent risk of surgical procedures.

4.2. Assessment of Existing Clinical Studies on Reconstructive Materials (Table 3)

The need for new methods in breast reconstruction has prompted significant research contributions on the clinical front.
One study introduced a method combining a three-dimensional absorbable mesh construct, referred to as the “Lotus scaffold”, with autologous fat grafting. A “Lotus” 3-D absorbable mesh scaffold plus 50–100 cc fat graft was used to reconstruct 28 breasts in 22 patients (19-month mean follow-up). Three FDA-approved meshes were tested (TIGR, SERI, PHASIX). Patients averaged two further graft sessions (≈458 mL total). Histology showed a strong fibrotic response around TIGR but more organized adipose with PHASIX; the scaffold stayed highly elastic. Adverse events occurred in 25% (one subdermal cancer recurrence), yet nearly all surveyed patients rated their breasts soft and natural [92].
Other authors explored breast reconstruction using dome-shaped acrylic chambers with perforated walls and internal capacities ranging from 140 to 360 mL. In this study, 5 participants underwent thoracodorsal artery perforator (TAP) flaps, with volumes ranging from 6 to 50 mL. These flaps were placed inside the TEC. Patients were then monitored post-surgery for up to six months until chamber removal, except for 1 patient showing notable tissue growth, who received follow ups for 6 additional months which resulted in filling a 210 mL space. Three other patients exhibited no tissue growth beyond the initial flap’s dimensions, resulting in silicone implant reconstructions. Lastly, one patient had her chamber removed early due to discomfort. Histological analyses after chamber removal confirmed the presence of viable, well-vascularized fat inside the chamber for certain patients [93]. Notably, patient-reported and aesthetic outcomes were not assessed in this study.
This same approach is being studied by the clinical trial NCT05460780, which aims to assess the safety and efficacy of Matisse®, a TEC implant-based method for immediate breast reconstruction in Georgia (country). This method, however, involves a bioabsorbable TEC implantation with a pedicled LICAp or LTAp flap within it to support a flap growth [94]. Although no preliminary results have been published, a recent press report released in 2022 claimed that they achieved the first successful breast reconstruction with their device [95].
Other tools have been developed and tested in the field of breast reconstruction with 3D printing, such as surgical meshes, to provide breast support for implants and tissue expanders. One study investigated the outcomes of using SERI® Surgical Scaffold (Sofregen; Medford, MA, USA) conducted in The Netherlands. This retrospective study included 16 patients (22 breasts) and found no intraoperative issues. However, postoperative complications such as bleeding (5%), seroma (45%), and infection (9%) were observed. Significantly, 14% lacked scaffold integration, resulting in skin ulcerations. The authors also conducted a systematic literature review, pinpointing the scarcity and potential bias in existing studies, with many authors affiliated with the product’s producer [96].
Another clinical trial (NCT05437757) investigates an approach for breast reconstruction where patients’ fat tissue is harvested using liposuction and then injected into 3D printed scaffold implants made of polycaprolactone, a material approved for skull bone restoration by Australian regulatory authorities. Currently, the trial is seeking around 20 participants, primarily to determine the safety and efficacy of this approach [97].
Some patient-oriented concerns when assessing the TEC or scaffolds used for breast reconstruction are the biomechanical properties of the materials. Since these TECs provide a hard shell to enhance flap growth, they must maintain their mechanical properties for an acceptable period. However, such properties could lead to discomfort and unnatural breast shapes for relatively long periods, discouraging patients from undergoing this type of reconstruction. Indeed, in Morrison et al.’s [93] study, one out of 5 subjects underwent early removal of the TEC due to discomfort [93].

5. Discussion

Current trends and advancements in tissue engineering and 3D printing.
The increasing popularity and advancements in 3D printing technology have ushered in a new era of tissue engineering. The latest 3D printers offer improved precision, allowing for the creation of more complex tissue structures.
In addition, 3D bioprinters have emerged as a promising tool for tissue engineering. Three-dimensional bioprinting uses stem cells and bioinks to create 3D structures. These structures eventually integrate with a patient’s tissue, thanks to the bioinks’ support for cell growth and adhesion [98]. One limitation of bioprinters is the high costs, with prices ranging from $5000 to over $1,000,000 [99]. However, many conventional low-cost 3D printers have been proven to be able to shift to bioprinters by modifying some factors [100,101,102].
There is still a considerable journey ahead in research involving bioprinters. While bioink has been utilized to construct various breast cancer models [103,104], its application in the context of breast reconstruction remains unexplored.

5.1. Identification of Research Gaps and Areas for Future Exploration

This paper has already delved into the research gaps. It goes without saying that given the relatively emerging nature of this field, there exists a vast array of unexplored territories.
Artificial Intelligence has the potential to revolutionize 3D printing in healthcare by precisely adapting designs to complex body structures using sensory data, making real-time adjustments during the printing process, and predicting and adapting to rapid changes, like organ movements [105,106]. In breast reconstruction, AI could enable the creation of more tailored implants and offer real-time adaptability to patient-specific anatomies, enhancing the overall precision and outcomes of the procedure.
Another field that needs to be explored, both in the preclinical and the clinical phases, is the use of growth factors and mesenchymal stem cells that can aid in fat growth and replication to expand fat flaps and fat grafts. However, contrary to the philosophy of 3D printing in healthcare, which promises simplicity, this would add further steps and obstacles, including concerns about the oncological potential of fat grafts.
Moreover, it remains to be determined whether the implantation of 3D printed devices, based on each design and polymer, might interfere with monitoring breast cancer recurrence.

5.2. Regulatory Considerations and Future Perspectives

Research has been focused on simplifying breast reconstruction through 1 or 2-stage reconstructions using specific materials. However, the properties of these scaffolds are yet to be improved to achieve mechanical properties resembling natural breasts, allowing for comfortability and wellness of patients during the first months before the polymer reabsorbs. To attain this goal, more materials and designs for breast TEC or scaffolds need to be tested.
Further limitations regarding materials that may be used for breast reconstruction arise based on FDA regulations. The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health regulates medical devices in the U.S., including those created using 3D printing. Based on regulatory control level, devices are categorized into Class I, II, and III. Most Class I medical devices are exempt from Premarket Notification 510(k), whereas Class II devices usually require it, and Class III devices, the highest risk category, need Premarket Approval (PMA) [107,108]. For a device to gain FDA clearance through 510(k), it must demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device that is legally marketed [109]. Currently, breast implants are classified as Class III devices [110]; furthermore, since the FDA has not yet approved or cleared any devices utilizing tissue bioengineering methods for breast reconstruction, new devices for this purpose will automatically require the more stringent PMA process before they can be legally marketed in the US.
In 2016, the FDA introduced draft guidance for 3D printed devices, providing advice on design, manufacturing, and testing. This guidance, still under review, details technical requirements and information expectations for premarket submissions [107].
The future of breast reconstruction with 3D printing methods envisions a scenario where the patient’s breasts are imaged, and the corresponding implants are manufactured directly within the healthcare facility, ensuring rapid availability at reduced costs. To support Point of Care manufacturing, the FDA is currently exploring regulatory frameworks for 3D printing of medical devices at the Point of Care. This initiative involves gathering stakeholder feedback to address the unique challenges of integrating 3D printing technologies in healthcare settings, focusing on managing risks and ensuring safety and effectiveness [111].
The regulatory landscape for 3D printing in breast reconstruction is intricate. While 3D printing offers tailored solutions vital for individual patient needs, it challenges traditional FDA frameworks designed for standardized devices. Balancing innovation and safety is critical. Defining responsibility becomes complex as 3D printing blurs the lines between manufacturers and healthcare providers. Transparent communication between innovators and regulatory bodies is crucial to navigating these challenges.

5.3. Challenges and Requirements for Clinical Translation

Challenges in clinical translation from animal models to humans in breast reconstruction arise due to the inherent biological differences between species, especially in tumor development and physiology [112]. Animal surgical models demonstrate limited success in translating to human clinical research, emphasizing an urgent need to explore alternative surgical research models.
Successful procedures in animal models might need significant modifications when applied to the larger and complex human anatomy. These changes are essential to ensure long-term outcomes, safety, and efficacy.
Concerning translational research in breast reconstruction using 3D printing, most studies perform reconstructions in healthy animal models, disregarding the impact of breast cancer resection, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy in such procedures. In contrast, studies in clinical trials are usually performed on patients immediately after cancer resection.
Further, objective evaluation of fat-flap and lipofilling outcomes is pivotal to the clinical translation of 3-D-printed, tissue-engineered constructs. The recent narrative review by Bogdan et al. [113] confirms that magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) remains the quantitative gold standard for breast volumetry, yet advocates a pragmatic multimodal algorithm that layers MRI with high-resolution 3-D surface scanning, CT, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), high-frequency ultrasonography with 2-/3-D shear-wave elastography, bio-impedance and even caliper measurements to balance accuracy, cost and accessibility. Crucially, the same review shows that seemingly minor variables (respiratory phase, posture, menstrual cycle and body-mass-index fluctuations) can shift measured breast volume by up to 8%, emphasizing the need to standardize or record these factors prospectively.

Clinical Translation and Implementation

Tissue engineering and 3D printing for breast reconstruction may face practical challenges in real-world applications. The cost of biomaterials remains a known barrier. Limited access to specialized grafting techniques may or may not pose significant limitations, as procedures such as liposuction and fat grafting are already feasible in many clinical settings; however, if future tissue-engineered strategies evolve to require complex, highly technical approaches, these may prove unfeasible in low-resource environments.
It is technically possible to manufacture and distribute standardized scaffolds from centralized facilities similar to how breast implants are currently produced and shipped. In contrast, the ability to design, customize, and fabricate patient-specific constructs locally would remain unfeasible in many low-resource settings. Regulatory variation across countries, shortages of trained personnel, and the lack of reimbursement frameworks add further complexity. These challenges underscore the need to consider not only innovation but also accessibility and scalability in the development of future clinical applications.
Taken together, 3-D-printed chambers/scaffolds for breast reconstruction remain investigational rather than practice-ready. Human data are limited and heterogeneous: the composite “Lotus” scaffold (absorbable mesh plus staged fat grafting) required ≈2 additional graft sessions (~458 mL total) with adverse events in ~25% despite favorable feel [92]; an acrylic tissue-engineering-chamber case series achieved substantial fill in only one of five patients and included early removal for discomfort [93]; and a SERI™ scaffold cohort reported frequent complications (e.g., seroma 45%, integration failure 14%) [96]. Two feasibility trials are in progress—the bioabsorbable MATTISSE® TEC and scaffold-guided fat injection using PCL—so durability and acceptability remain to be demonstrated [94,95,97]. Implementation should prioritize patient comfort and revision burden while standardizing outcomes: MRI-based volumetry as the quantitative gold standard, complemented by accessible modalities, and co-primary patient-reported outcomes (e.g., BREAST-Q) [86,87,88,89,90,91,113]. Seemingly small methodological factors (posture, respiration, menstrual cycle, BMI) can shift measured volume by up to ~8%, so they should be prespecified and controlled [113]. Context matters clinically: irradiation curtailed fat growth and increased fibrosis in PLGA-TEC models, informing eligibility and timing in early studies [52]. Finally, absent predicates and the Class III status of breast implants imply a PMA pathway for any tissue-engineered breast device in the U.S., with point-of-care manufacturing frameworks still under FDA discussion [107,108,109,110,111]. Near-term trials should therefore prospectively capture quantitative volumetry, predefined complications (including seroma/revisions), device absorption status, and BREAST-Q outcomes to enable rational scale-up.

5.4. Future Prospects and Potential Impact of Tissue Engineering in Breast Reconstruction

In the evolving field of breast reconstruction, tissue engineering stands poised to revolutionize treatment paradigms. Harnessing the synergy of advanced biomaterials, 3D printing, and regenerative medicine, the prospect of creating personalized, biocompatible reconstructions that mimic the native breast tissue’s form and function is on the horizon. This transition promises enhanced aesthetic and functional outcomes and a potential reduction in post-surgical complications. By addressing current limitations and intricacies of traditional reconstructive procedures, tissue engineering could elevate the standard of care, offering patients natural-feeling results and enhancing the quality of life.

6. Conclusions

Tissue engineering and 3D printing technologies represent significant potential to address existing limitations in breast reconstruction following mastectomy. The integration of biodegradable biomaterials, such as PLA, PGA, PLGA, and P4HB, offers promising strategies to mimic the native structure and function of breast tissue, aiming for enhanced aesthetic and functional outcomes. However, critical gaps persist, notably in the biocompatibility, degradation kinetics, and biomechanical properties of these materials, as revealed by current preclinical evidence.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D.D.S.V., Y.T. and A.S.; methodology, G.D.D.S.V. and Y.T.; software, G.D.D.S.V. and Y.T.; validation, G.D.D.S.V., Y.T. and A.S.; data curation, G.D.D.S.V. and Y.T.; writing—original draft preparation, G.D.D.S.V. and Y.T.; writing—review and editing, G.D.D.S.V., Y.T., F.T., T.H. and A.S.; visualization, Y.T.; supervision, F.T., T.H. and A.S.; project administration, Y.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

Chat GPT 4o was used to improve readability of some sections.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool, Based on 2022 Submission Data (1999–2020): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dataviz (accessed on 13 June 2023).
  2. Park, J.; Look, K.A. Health Care Expenditure Burden of Cancer Care in the United States. Inquiry 2019, 56, 46958019880696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Carreira, H.; Williams, R.; Dempsey, H.; Stanway, S.; Smeeth, L.; Bhaskaran, K. Quality of life and mental health in breast cancer survivors compared with non-cancer controls: A study of patient-reported outcomes in the United Kingdom. J. Cancer Surviv. 2021, 15, 564–575. [Google Scholar]
  4. Fortunato, L.; Loreti, A.; Cortese, G.; Spallone, D.; Toto, V.; Cavaliere, F.; Farina, M.; La Pinta, M.; Manna, E.; Detto, L.; et al. Regret and Quality of Life After Mastectomy With or Without Reconstruction. Clin. Breast Cancer 2021, 21, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Friedrich, M.; Krämer, S.; Friedrich, D.; Kraft, C.; Maass, N.; Rogmans, C. Difficulties of Breast Reconstruction-Problems That No One Likes to Face. Anticancer Res. 2021, 41, 5365–5375. [Google Scholar]
  6. FDA Takes Action to Protect Patients from Risk of Certain Textured Breast Implants; Requests Allergan Voluntarily Recall Certain Breast Implants and Tissue Expanders from Market: Food and Drug Administration. 2019. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-protect-patients-risk-certain-textured-breast-implants-requests-allergan (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  7. UPDATE: Reports of Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) in the Capsule Around Breast Implants-FDA Safety Communication: Food and Drug Administration. 2023. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-reports-squamous-cell-carcinoma-scc-capsule-around-breast-implants-fda-safety-communication (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  8. Fracon, S.; Renzi, N.; Manara, M.; Ramella, V.; Papa, G.; Arnež, Z.M. Patient Satisfaction After Breast Reconstruction: Implants vs. Autologous Tissues. Acta Chir. Plast. 2018, 59, 120–128. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mortada, H.; AlNojaidi, T.F.; AlRabah, R.; Almohammadi, Y.; AlKhashan, R.; Aljaaly, H. Morbidity of the Donor Site and Complication Rates of Breast Reconstruction with Autologous Abdominal Flaps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Breast J. 2022, 2022, 7857158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Atisha, D.; Alderman, A.K. A systematic review of abdominal wall function following abdominal flaps for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2009, 63, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nangole, W.F.; Khainga, S.; Aswani, J.; Kahoro, L.; Vilembwa, A. Free Flaps in a Resource Constrained Environment: A Five-Year Experience-Outcomes and Lessons Learned. Plast. Surg. Int. 2015, 2015, 194174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Citron, I.; Galiwango, G.; Hodges, A. Challenges in global microsurgery: A six year review of outcomes at an East African hospital. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2016, 69, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gentile, P.; Cervelli, V. Systematic review: Oncological safety of reconstruction with fat grafting in breast cancer outcomes. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2022, 75, 4160–4168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Nava, M.B.; Blondeel, P.; Botti, G.; Casabona, F.; Catanuto, G.; Clemens, M.W.; De Fazio, D.; De Vita, R.; Grotting, J.; Hammond, D.C.; et al. International Expert Panel Consensus on Fat Grafting of the Breast. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 2019, 7, e2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Turner, A.; Abu-Ghname, A.; Davis, M.J.; Winocour, S.J.; Hanson, S.E.; Chu, C.K. Fat Grafting in Breast Reconstruction. Semin. Plast. Surg. 2020, 34, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zielins, E.R.; Brett, E.A.; Longaker, M.T.; Wan, D.C. Autologous Fat Grafting: The Science Behind the Surgery. Aesthetic Surg. J. 2016, 36, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mironov, V. Printing technology to produce living tissue. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2003, 3, 701–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moroni, L.; Burdick, J.A.; Highley, C.; Lee, S.J.; Morimoto, Y.; Takeuchi, S.; Yoo, J.J. Biofabrication strategies for 3D in vitro models and regenerative medicine. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2018, 3, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shafiee, A.; Atala, A. Tissue Engineering: Toward a New Era of Medicine. Annu. Rev. Med. 2017, 68, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Derby, B. Printing and prototyping of tissues and scaffolds. Science 2012, 338, 921–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. O’Brien, F.J. Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater. Today 2011, 14, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Place, E.S.; Evans, N.D.; Stevens, M.M. Complexity in biomaterials for tissue engineering. Nat. Mater. 2009, 8, 457–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mollica, P.A.; Booth-Creech, E.N.; Reid, J.A.; Zamponi, M.; Sullivan, S.M.; Palmer, X.L.; Sachs, P.C.; Bruno, R.D. 3D bioprinted mammary organoids and tumoroids in human mammary derived ECM hydrogels. Acta Biomater. 2019, 95, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, Y.S.; Yue, K.; Aleman, J.; Moghaddam, K.M.; Bakht, S.M.; Yang, J.; Jia, W.; Dell’Erba, V.; Assawes, P.; Shin, S.R.; et al. 3D Bioprinting for Tissue and Organ Fabrication. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2017, 45, 148–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Almouemen, N.; Kelly, H.M.; O’Leary, C. Tissue Engineering: Understanding the Role of Biomaterials and Biophysical Forces on Cell Functionality Through Computational and Structural Biotechnology Analytical Methods. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2019, 17, 591–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gaharwar, A.K.; Singh, I.; Khademhosseini, A. Engineered biomaterials for in situ tissue regeneration. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2020, 5, 686–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Han, F.; Wang, J.; Ding, L.; Hu, Y.; Li, W.; Yuan, Z.; Guo, Q.; Zhu, C.; Yu, L.; Wang, H.; et al. Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine: Achievements, Future, and Sustainability in Asia. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kim, H.S.; Kumbar, S.G.; Nukavarapu, S.P. Biomaterial-directed cell behavior for tissue engineering. Curr. Opin. Biomed. Engineering 2021, 17, 100260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Leung, C.M.; de Haan, P.; Ronaldson-Bouchard, K.; Kim, G.-A.; Ko, J.; Rho, H.S.; Chen, Z.; Habibovic, P.; Jeon, N.L.; Takayama, S.; et al. A guide to the organ-on-a-chip. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2022, 2, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marei, I.; Abu Samaan, T.; Al-Quradaghi, M.A.; Farah, A.A.; Mahmud, S.H.; Ding, H.; Triggle, C.R. 3D Tissue-Engineered Vascular Drug Screening Platforms: Promise and Considerations. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 847554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. O’Connor, C.; Brady, E.; Zheng, Y.; Moore, E.; Stevens, K.R. Engineering the multiscale complexity of vascular networks. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2022, 7, 702–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Middleton, J.C.; Tipton, A.J. Synthetic biodegradable polymers as orthopedic devices. Biomaterials 2000, 21, 2335–2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kim, K.; Jeong, C.G.; Hollister, S.J. Non-invasive monitoring of tissue scaffold degradation using ultrasound elasticity imaging. Acta Biomater. 2008, 4, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Larsen, A.; Rasmussen, L.E.; Rasmussen, L.F.; Weltz, T.K.; Hemmingsen, M.N.; Poulsen, S.S.; Jacobsen, J.C.B.; Vester-Glowinski, P.; Herly, M. Histological Analyses of Capsular Contracture and Associated Risk Factors: A Systematic Review. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2021, 45, 2714–2728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yang, S.; Klietz, M.-L.; Harren, A.K.; Wei, Q.; Hirsch, T.; Aitzetmüller, M.M. Understanding Breast Implant Illness: Etiology is the Key. Aesthetic. Surg. J. 2021, 42, 370–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Daghighi, S.; Sjollema, J.; van der Mei, H.C.; Busscher, H.J.; Rochford, E.T.J. Infection resistance of degradable versus non-degradable biomaterials: An assessment of the potential mechanisms. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 8013–8017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kontio, R.; Ruuttila, P.; Lindroos, L.; Suuronen, R.; Salo, A.; Lindqvist, C.; Virtanen, I.; Konttinen, Y. Biodegradable polydioxanone and poly(l/d)lactide implants: An experimental study on peri-implant tissue response. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2005, 34, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Alipour, S.; Omranipour, R.; Eslami, B.; Khalighfard, S.; Saberi, A.; Shabestari, A.; Alizadeh, A.M. A pilot study of the use of human amniotic membrane as subcutaneous implants in a mouse model: A potential for temporary substitutes in two-stage breast reconstructions. BMC Women’s Health 2023, 23, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Otani, N.; Tomita, K.; Taminato, M.; Kuroda, K.; Yano, K.; Kubo, T. Sensory Reinnervation With Subcutaneously Embedded Innervated Flaps: An Experimental Study in Rats. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2022, 88, e1–e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stec, E.; Lombardi, J.; Augustin, J.; Sandor, M. Acellular Dermal Matrix Susceptibility to Collagen Digestion: Effect on Mechanics and Host Response. Tissue Eng. Part A 2023, 29, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Thomas, B.; Warszawski, J.; Falkner, F.; Bleichert, S.; Haug, V.; Bigdeli, A.K.; Schulte, M.; Hoffmann, S.H.L.; Garvalov, B.K.; Schreiber, C.; et al. Fat Grafts Show Higher Hypoxia, Angiogenesis, Adipocyte Proliferation, and Macrophage Infiltration than Flaps in a Pilot Mouse Study. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2023, 152, 96e–109e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vieira, V.J.; D’Acampora, A.; Neves, F.S.; Mendes, P.R.; Vasconcellos, Z.A.; Neves, R.D.; Figueiredo, C.P. Capsular Contracture In Silicone Breast Implants: Insights From Rat Models. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2016, 88, 1459–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, D.; Chen, W. Indocyanine Green Angiography for Continuously Monitoring Blood Flow Changes and Predicting Perfusion of Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap in Rats. J. Investig. Surg. 2021, 34, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Huss, F.R.; Kratz, G. Mammary epithelial cell and adipocyte co-culture in a 3-D matrix: The first step towards tissue-engineered human breast tissue. Cells Tissues Organs 2001, 169, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Huss, F.R.; Kratz, G. Adipose tissue processed for lipoinjection shows increased cellular survival in vitro when tissue engineering principles are applied. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Hand Surg. 2002, 36, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Krause, S.; Maffini, M.V.; Soto, A.M.; Sonnenschein, C. A novel 3D in vitro culture model to study stromal-epithelial interactions in the mammary gland. Tissue Eng. Part C Methods 2008, 14, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Findlay, M.W.; Dolderer, J.H.; Trost, N.; Craft, R.O.; Cao, Y.; Cooper-White, J.; Stevens, G.; Morrison, W.A. Tissue-engineered breast reconstruction: Bridging the gap toward large-volume tissue engineering in humans. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011, 128, 1206–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Findlay, M.W.; Messina, A.; Thompson, E.W.; Morrison, W.A. Long-term persistence of tissue-engineered adipose flaps in a murine model to 1 year: An update. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009, 124, 1077–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dolderer, J.H.; Abberton, K.M.; Thompson, E.W.; Slavin, J.L.; Stevens, G.W.; Penington, A.J.; Morrison, W.A. Spontaneous large volume adipose tissue generation from a vascularized pedicled fat flap inside a chamber space. Tissue Eng. 2007, 13, 673–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Doldere, J.H.; Thompson, E.W.; Slavin, J.; Trost, N.; Cooper-White, J.J.; Cao, Y.; O’connor, A.J.; Penington, A.F.; Morrison, W.A.F.; Abberton, K.M.M. Long-Term Stability of Adipose Tissue Generated from a Vascularized Pedicled Fat Flap inside a Chamber. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011, 127, 2283–2292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wan, J.; Dong, Z.; Lei, C.; Lu, F. Generating an Engineered Adipose Tissue Flap Using an External Suspension Device. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2016, 138, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cleret, D.; Gradwohl, M.; Dekerle, L.; Drucbert, A.S.; Idziorek, T.; Pasquier, D.; Blanchemain, N.; Payen, J.; Guerreschi, P.; Marchetti, P. Preclinical Study of Radiation on Fat Flap Regeneration under Tissue-engineering Chamber: Potential Consequences for Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 2022, 10, e4720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Faglin, P.; Gradwohl, M.; Depoortere, C.; Germain, N.; Drucbert, A.-S.; Brun, S.; Nahon, C.; Dekiouk, S.; Rech, A.; Azaroual, N.; et al. Rationale for the design of 3D-printable bioresorbable tissue-engineering chambers to promote the growth of adipose tissue. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Dong, X.; Premaratne, I.D.; Sariibrahimoglu, K.; Limem, S.; Scott, J.; Gadjiko, M.; Berri, N.; Ginter, P.; Spector, J.A. 3D-printed poly-4-hydroxybutyrate bioabsorbable scaffolds for nipple reconstruction. Acta Biomater. 2022, 143, 333–343. [Google Scholar]
  55. Samadi, A.; Premaratne, I.D.; Wright, M.A.; Bernstein, J.L.; Lara, D.O.; Kim, J.; Zhao, R.; Bonassar, L.J.; Spector, J.A. Nipple Engineering: Maintaining Nipple Geometry with Externally Scaffolded Processed Autologous Costal Cartilage. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2021, 74, 2596–2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bao, W.; Cao, L.; Wei, H.; Zhu, D.; Zhou, G.; Wang, J.; Guo, S. Effect of 3D printed polycaprolactone scaffold with a bionic structure on the early stage of fat grafting. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2021, 123, 111973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chhaya, M.P.; Balmayor, E.R.; Hutmacher, D.W.; Schantz, J.-T. Transformation of Breast Reconstruction via Additive Biomanufacturing. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Baek, W.; Kim, M.S.; Park, D.B.; Joo, O.Y.; Lee, W.J.; Roh, T.S.; Sung, H.-J. Three-Dimensionally Printed Breast Reconstruction Devices Facilitate Nanostructure Surface-Guided Healthy Lipogenesis. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 5, 4962–4969. [Google Scholar]
  59. Anderson, J.M.; Rodriguez, A.; Chang, D.T. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin. Immunol. 2008, 20, 86–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Klopfleisch, R.; Jung, F. The pathology of the foreign body reaction against biomaterials. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2017, 105, 927–940. [Google Scholar]
  61. Li, C.; Guo, C.; Fitzpatrick, V.; Ibrahim, A.; Zwierstra, M.J.; Hanna, P.; Lechtig, A.; Nazarian, A.; Lin, S.J.; Kaplan, D.L. Design of biodegradable, implantable devices towards clinical translation. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2020, 5, 61–81. [Google Scholar]
  62. Idrees, H.; Zaidi, S.Z.J.; Sabir, A.; Khan, R.U.; Zhang, X.; Hassan, S.U. A Review of Biodegradable Natural Polymer-Based Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery Applications. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Prakasam, M.; Locs, J.; Salma-Ancane, K.; Loca, D.; Largeteau, A.; Berzina-Cimdina, L. Biodegradable Materials and Metallic Implants-A Review. J. Funct. Biomater. 2017, 8, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Li, J.-W.; Du, C.-F.; Yuchi, C.-X.; Zhang, C.-Q. Application of Biodegradable Materials in Orthopedics. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 2019, 39, 633–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hua, W.; Shi, W.; Mitchell, K.; Raymond, L.; Coulter, R.; Zhao, D.; Jin, Y. 3D Printing of Biodegradable Polymer Vascular Stents: A Review. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. Addit. Manuf. Front. 2022, 1, 100020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Xu, R.; Fang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Cao, Y.; Yan, Y.; Gan, L.; Xu, J.; Zhou, G. Recent Advances in Biodegradable and Biocompatible Synthetic Polymers Used in Skin Wound Healing. Materials 2023, 16, 5459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ongarora, B.G. Recent technological advances in the management of chronic wounds: A literature review. Health Sci. Rep. 2022, 5, e641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Seitz, J.M.; Durisin, M.; Goldman, J.; Drelich, J.W. Recent advances in biodegradable metals for medical sutures: A critical review. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2015, 4, 1915–1936. [Google Scholar]
  69. Chima, V.M.; Mohammed, A.; Evran, U.; Michael, O.H.; Maxwell, M.K.; Kylie, S.; Makela, A.V.; Pope, H.; Chen, S.; Hix, J.M.; et al. Polylactide Degradation Activates Immune Cells by Metabolic Reprogramming. bioRxiv 2022, 2022.09.22.509105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhao, X.; Hu, H.; Wang, X.; Yu, X.; Zhou, W.; Peng, S. Super tough poly(lactic acid) blends: A comprehensive review. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 13316–13368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Khiste, S.V.; Ranganath, V.; Nichani, A.S. Evaluation of tensile strength of surgical synthetic absorbable suture materials: An in vitro study. JPIS 2013, 43, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Sanko, V.; Sahin, I.; Aydemir Sezer, U.; Sezer, S. A versatile method for the synthesis of poly(glycolic acid): High solubility and tunable molecular weights. Polym. J. 2019, 51, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gentile, P.; Chiono, V.; Carmagnola, I.; Hatton, P.V. An overview of poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA)-based biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 3640–3659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Deeken, C.R.; Matthews, B.D. Characterization of the Mechanical Strength, Resorption Properties, and Histologic Characteristics of a Fully Absorbable Material (Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-PHASIX Mesh) in a Porcine Model of Hernia Repair. ISRN Surg. 2013, 2013, 238067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Utsunomia, C.; Ren, Q.; Zinn, M. Poly(4-Hydroxybutyrate): Current State and Perspectives. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. König Kardgar, A.; Ghosh, D.; Sturve, J.; Agarwal, S.; Carney Almroth, B. Chronic poly(l-lactide) (PLA)- microplastic ingestion affects social behavior of juvenile European perch (Perca fluviatilis). Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 881, 163425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Li, Z.; Tan, B.H.; Lin, T.; He, C. Recent advances in stereocomplexation of enantiomeric PLA-based copolymers and applications. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2016, 62, 22–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. BaoLin, G.; Ma, P.X. Synthetic biodegradable functional polymers for tissue engineering: A brief review. Sci. China Chem. 2014, 57, 490–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Vegas, M.R.; Martin del Yerro, J.L. Stiffness, Compliance, Resilience, and Creep Deformation: Understanding Implant-Soft Tissue Dynamics in the Augmented Breast: Fundamentals Based on Materials Science. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2013, 37, 922–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Honkala, A.; Malhotra, S.V.; Kummar, S.; Junttila, M.R. Harnessing the predictive power of preclinical models for oncology drug development. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2022, 21, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mishra, A.; Sarangi, S.C.; Reeta, K. First-in-human dose: Current status review for better future perspectives. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020, 76, 1237–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Shanks, N.; Greek, R.; Greek, J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos. Ethics Humanit. Med. 2009, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Varkey, B. Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice. Med. Princ. Pract. 2021, 30, 17–28. [Google Scholar]
  84. Nimpf, S.; Keays, D.A. Why (and how) we should publish negative data. EMBO Rep. 2020, 21, e49775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mainz, J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2003, 15, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Pusic, A.L.; Klassen, A.F.; Scott, A.M.; Klok, J.A.; Cordeiro, P.G.; Cano, S.J. Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Breast Surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009, 124, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Liu, L.Q.; Branford, O.A.; Mehigan, S. BREAST-Q Measurement of the Patient Perspective in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 2018, 6, e1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Seth, I.; Seth, N.; Bulloch, G.; Rozen, W.M.; Hunter-Smith, D.J. Systematic Review of Breast-Q: A Tool to Evaluate Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction. Breast Cancer Targets Ther. (Dove Med. Press) 2021, 13, 711–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Morley, R.; Leech, T. Optimal assessment tools in assessing breast surgery: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) vs. objective measures. Gland Surg. 2019, 8, 416–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cardoso, M.J.; Cardoso, J.S.; Wild, T.; Krois, W.; Fitzal, F. Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2009, 116, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Duraes, E.F.R.; Durand, P.; Morisada, M.; Scomacao, I.; Duraes, L.C.; de Sousa, J.B.; Abedi, N.; Djohan, R.S.; Bernard, S.; Moreira, A.; et al. A Novel Validated Breast Aesthetic Scale. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2022, 149, 1297–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Rehnke, R.D.; Schusterman, M.A., II; Clarke, J.M.; Price, B.C.; Waheed, U.; Debski, R.E.; Badylak, S.F.D.; Rubin, J.P. Breast Reconstruction Using a Three-Dimensional Absorbable Mesh Scaffold and Autologous Fat Grafting: A Composite Strategy Based on Tissue-Engineering Principles. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2020, 146, 409e–413e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Morrison, W.A.; Marre, D.; Grinsell, D.; Batty, A.; Trost, N.; O’Connor, A.J. Creation of a Large Adipose Tissue Construct in Humans Using a Tissue-engineering Chamber: A Step Forward in the Clinical Application of Soft Tissue Engineering. EBioMedicine 2016, 6, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. First-in-Human, Study of MATTISSE® Tissue Engineering Chamber in Adult Female Patients Undergoing Immediate Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy for Cancer. Available online: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT05460780 (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  95. Lattice Medical. LATTICE MEDICAL Announces the Success of the First Breast Reconstruction Operation with the MATTISSE Implant. 2022. Available online: https://www.medical-xprt.com/news/lattice-medical-announces-the-success-of-the-first-breast-reconstruction-operation-with-the-mattisse-1094762 (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  96. van Turnhout, A.; Franke, C.J.J.; Vriens-Nieuwenhuis, E.J.C.; van der Sluis, W.B. The use of SERI™ Surgical Scaffolds in direct-to-implant reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy: A retrospective study on surgical outcomes and a systematic review of current literature. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2018, 71, 644–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Scaffold-Guided Breast Surgery. Available online: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT05437757 (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  98. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.P.; Suman, R. 3D printing applications for healthcare research and development. Glob. Health J. 2022, 6, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Tashman, J.W.; Shiwarski, D.J.; Feinberg, A.W. Development of a high-performance open-source 3D bioprinter. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 22652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kahl, M.; Gertig, M.; Hoyer, P.; Friedrich, O.; Gilbert, D. Ultra-Low-Cost 3D Bioprinting: Modification and Application of an Off-the-Shelf Desktop 3D-Printer for Biofabrication. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Bessler, N.; Ogiermann, D.; Buchholz, M.-B.; Santel, A.; Heidenreich, J.; Ahmmed, R.; Zaehres, H.; Brand-Saberi, B. Nydus One Syringe Extruder (NOSE): A Prusa i3 3D printer conversion for bioprinting applications utilizing the FRESH-method. HardwareX 2019, 6, e00069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Krige, A.; Haluška, J.; Rova, U.; Christakopoulos, P. Design State of Research on Tissue Engineering with 3D Printing for Breast Reconstruction. Preprints 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Mohammadrezaei, D.; Moghimi, N.; Vandvajdi, S.; Powathil, G.; Hamis, S.; Kohandel, M. Predicting and elucidating the post-printing behavior of 3D printed cancer cells in hydrogel structures by integrating in-vitro and in-silico ex-periments. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Neufeld, L.; Yeini, E.; Pozzi, S.; Satchi-Fainaro, R. 3D bioprinted cancer models: From basic biology to drug de-velopment. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2022, 22, 679–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Zhu, Z.; Ng, D.W.H.; Park, H.S.; McAlpine, M.C. 3D-printed multifunctional materials enabled by artificial-intelligence-assisted fabrication technologies. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2021, 6, 27–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Rojek, I.; Mikołajewski, D.; Dostatni, E.; Macko, M. AI-Optimized Technological Aspects of the Material Used in 3D Printing Processes for Selected Medical Applications. Materials 2020, 13, 5437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. FDA’s Role in 3D Printing: Food and Drug Administration. 2017. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/3d-printing-medical-devices/fdas-role-3d-printing (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  108. Overview of Medical Device Classification and Reclassification: Food and Drug Administration. 2017. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/cdrh-transparency/overview-medical-device-classification-and-reclassification (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  109. How to Find and Effectively Use Predicate Devices: Food and Drug Administration. 2018. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-notification-510k/how-find-and-effectively-use-predicate-devices (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  110. FDA Strengthens Safety Requirements and Updates Study Results for Breast Implants: Food and Drug Ad-ministration. 2021. Available online: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fda-strengthens-safety-requirements-and-updates-study-results-for-breast-implants-301410216.html (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  111. 3D Printing Medical Devices at the Point of Care: Discussion Paper: Food and Drug Administration. 2021. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/3d-printing-medical-devices/3d-printing-medical-devices-point-care-discussion-paper (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  112. Bernier, J. Translational breast cancer research: Recent advances through the lens of experimental radio-therapy. Breast 2010, 19, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Bogdan, R.G. Assessing Fat Grafting in Breast Surgery: A Narrative Review of Evaluation Techniques. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 7209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 2. Evaluation of biodegradable materials in preclinical models: biocompatibility, degradation kinetics and biomechanical properties.
Table 2. Evaluation of biodegradable materials in preclinical models: biocompatibility, degradation kinetics and biomechanical properties.
Material (References:
[59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79])		BiocompatibilityDegradation KineticsBiomechanical
Properties		Key Points and
Considerations
PLA (Polylactic Acid)Moderate; can trigger inflammatory responses due to acidic degradation products (lactic acid).6 to 12 monthsGood initial mechanical properties but tends to become brittle.Widely utilized; concern about inflammation due to acidic degradation byproducts.
PGA (Polyglycolic Acid)Good biocompatibility; broadly accepted in medical applications such as sutures.Rapid degradation within weeks to months, breaking down into glycolic acid.High initial strength, diminishes quickly due to rapid degradation.Beneficial for short-term applications; degradation may be too rapid for prolonged structural support.
PLGA (Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)Generally good; however, inflammatory concerns exist due to acidic degradation products.Adjustable degradation time from weeks to months depending on the PLA to PGA ratio.Mechanical properties adjustable through composition ratio (versatile).Highly customizable; requires careful formulation to balance degradation rate and inflammatory response.
P4HB (Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate)Excellent biocompatibility with minimal inflammatory response.Degrades over approximately 12 to 18 months into 4-hydroxybutyric acid.Flexible, robust mechanical strength suited for soft tissue implants.Ideal for long-term, flexible support; more complex and costly due to exclusive fermentation-based synthesis.
Poly(D,L-lactide)Moderate biocompatibility; inflammatory response potential similar to PLA.Similarly to PLA; adjustable by altering blend ratio of stereoisomers.Properties depend on stereoisomer ratios; can exhibit brittleness.Mechanical and degradation profiles can be customized, yet inflammatory potential remains a concern.
Table 3. Clinical studies on reconstructive materials.
Table 3. Clinical studies on reconstructive materials.
Author, YearStudy ObjectiveMethodologyMaterials UsedKey FindingsLimitations
Rehnke, 2020 [92]Evaluate effectiveness of composite strategy combining absorbable mesh with autologous fat graftingRetrospective review, 22 patients, 28 reconstructed breasts, mean follow-up 19 monthsLotus scaffold (TIGR Matrix, SERI Scaffold, PHASIX mesh), Autologous fat graftHigh elasticity, natural feel; histology: PHASIX mesh had superior fat structuring and milder foreign body responseSmall sample size, retrospective design, limited follow-up period
Morrison, 2016 [93]Assess clinical feasibility of TEC for adipose tissue growthCase series, 5 patients, TEC with TAP flaps, follow-up up to 6–12 monthsAcrylic chambers, thoracodorsal artery perforator (TAP) flapsOne patient achieved significant tissue expansion (210 mL); others no significant growthSmall sample size, limited success, patient discomfort led to early removal
Clinical trial NCT05460780 [94,95]Safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable TEC with LICAp/LTAp flapOngoing trial, immediate reconstruction post-mastectomyBioabsorbable TEC, LICAp or LTAp pedicled flapsPreliminary results: successful implantation in first human case (as reported)Awaiting comprehensive data and long-term follow-up results
van Turnhout, 2018 [96]Evaluate SERI surgical scaffold for direct-to-implant reconstructionRetrospective review, 16 patients, 22 breasts; literature review includedSERI surgical scaffoldHigh complication rate (seroma 45%, scaffold integration issues 14%)Retrospective, small sample, potential product-associated bias
Clinical trial NCT05437757 [97]Safety and efficacy of fat grafting within 3D-printed scaffoldsProspective trial, recruiting 20 participants3D-printed polycaprolactone scaffold, autologous fatOngoing, preliminary safety and effectiveness assessment in progressAwaiting results, small planned sample
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

De Sario Velasquez, G.D.; Tanas, Y.; Taraballi, F.; Herzog, T.; Spiegel, A. State of Research on Tissue Engineering with 3D Printing for Breast Reconstruction. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 6737. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14196737

AMA Style

De Sario Velasquez GD, Tanas Y, Taraballi F, Herzog T, Spiegel A. State of Research on Tissue Engineering with 3D Printing for Breast Reconstruction. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(19):6737. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14196737

Chicago/Turabian Style

De Sario Velasquez, Gioacchino D., Yousef Tanas, Francesca Taraballi, Tanya Herzog, and Aldona Spiegel. 2025. "State of Research on Tissue Engineering with 3D Printing for Breast Reconstruction" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 19: 6737. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14196737

APA Style

De Sario Velasquez, G. D., Tanas, Y., Taraballi, F., Herzog, T., & Spiegel, A. (2025). State of Research on Tissue Engineering with 3D Printing for Breast Reconstruction. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(19), 6737. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14196737

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop