Breast Reconstruction Using Scaffold-Based Tissue Engineering

  • Jan Janzekovic
  • Michael Wagels
  • Dietmar W. HutmacherEmail author


Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering is becoming increasingly utilised across a broad range of medical specialties. By implanting a 3D printed, patient-specific scaffold, novel adipose tissue can be allowed to grow and fill the contour of the breast following mastectomy, partial mastectomy or even for revision augmentation procedures. The biomechanics, chemical properties and degradation characteristics of the scaffold material are crucial considerations in determining the success and safety of breast regeneration using tissue engineering. Large animal trials show promising results, with scaffolds made from medical grade polycaprolactone (mPCL) able to produce clinically significant amount of adipose tissue in a pig model. Further optimisation of scaffold architecture, potential for drug delivery and human trials are on the near horizon for this emerging option in breast reconstruction.


Scaffolds Breast tissue engineering Regenerative medicine 3D printing Additive biomanufacturing 


  1. 1.
    Terzic A, Nelson TJ. Regenerative medicine primer. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(7):766–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Panayi AC, Orgill DP. Current use of biological scaffolds in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(1):209e–20e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gefen A, Dilmoney B. Mechanics of the normal woman’s breast. Technol Health Care. 2007;15(4):259–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chhaya MP, et al. Breast reconstruction using biofabrication-based tissue engineering strategies. In: Forgacs G, Sun W, editors. Biofabrication. Boston: William Andrew Publishing; 2013. p. 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hutmacher D, Kirsch A, Ackermann KL, Huerzeler MB. Matrix and carrier materials for bone growth factors∗state of the art and future perspectives. In: Stark GB, Horch R, Tancos E, editors. Biological matrices and tissue reconstruction. Springer: Heidelberg, Germany; 1998. p. 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hutmacher DW. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials. 2000;21(24):2529–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bostman O, et al. Foreign-body reactions to fracture fixation implants of biodegradable synthetic polymers. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(4):592–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergsma EJ, et al. Foreign body reactions to resorbable poly(L-lactide) bone plates and screws used for the fixation of unstable zygomatic fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;51(6):666–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bergsma JE, et al. Late degradation tissue response to poly(L-lactide) bone plates and screws. Biomaterials. 1995;16(1):25–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hutmacher DW, et al. State of the art and future directions of scaffold-based bone engineering from a biomaterials perspective. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2007;1(4):245–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henkel J, et al. Bone regeneration based on tissue engineering conceptions – a 21st century perspective. Bone Res. 2013;1(3):216–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woodruff MA, Hutmacher DW, Berner A, Lange C, Reichert JC, Fratzl P, Chen F. Bone tissue engineering: from bench to bedside. Mater Today. 2012;15(10):430–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hollinger JO, Chaudhari A. Bone regeneration materials for the mandibular and craniofacial complex. Cells Mater. 1992;2:143–51.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeevan R, et al. Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2012;345:e4505.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rabey NG, et al. Salvage of failed prosthetic breast reconstructions by autologous conversion with free tissue transfers. Eplasty. 2013;13:e32.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moore KL, Daly AF, Agur AMR. Clinically oriented anatomy, vol. 5. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patrick CW. Breast tissue engineering. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2004;6:109–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nijenhuis MV, Rutgers EJ. Who should not undergo breast conservation? Breast. 2013;22(Suppl 2):S110–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thorarinsson A, et al. Long-term health-related quality of life after breast reconstruction: comparing 4 different methods of reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(6):e1316.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Folgiero V, et al. Purification and characterization of adipose-derived stem cells from patients with lipoaspirate transplant. Cell Transplant. 2010;19(10):1225–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lopez J, et al. Cytokine-rich adipose tissue extract production from water-assisted lipoaspirate: methodology for clinical use. Biores Open Access. 2016;5(1):269–78.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khouri RK, et al. Megavolume autologous fat transfer: part I. Theory and principles. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(3):550–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khouri RK, et al. Brava and autologous fat transfer is a safe and effective breast augmentation alternative: results of a 6-year, 81-patient, prospective multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(5):1173–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hamza A, Lohsiriwat V, Rietjens M. Lipofilling in breast cancer surgery. Gland Surg. 2013;2(1):7–14.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kasem A, et al. Breast lipofilling: a review of current practice. Arch Plast Surg. 2015;42(2):126–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rubin JP, et al. Mammographic changes after fat transfer to the breast compared with changes after breast reduction: a blinded study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(5):1029–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kam K, et al. The effect of breast implants on mammogram outcomes. Am Surg. 2015;81(10):1053–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Handel N. The effect of silicone implants on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(7 Suppl 1):81s–93s.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thongchai P. The surgically altered breast: imaging technique and findings. Gland Surg. 2014;3(1):48–50.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Silva MMA, et al. Oncologic safety of fat grafting for autologous breast reconstruction in an animal model of residual breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(1):103–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Donnenberg VS, et al. Regenerative therapy after cancer: what are the risks? Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2010;16(6):567–75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krastev TK, et al. Meta-analysis of the oncological safety of autologous fat transfer after breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105(9):1082–97.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Calabrese C, et al. Oncoplastic conservative surgery for breast cancer: long-term outcomes of our first ten years experience. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018;22(21):7333–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Holmes DR, Schooler W, Smith R. Oncoplastic approaches to breast conservation. Int J Breast Cancer. 2011;2011:303879.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Clough KB, Kroll SS, Audretsch W. An approach to the repair of partial mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(2):409–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Margenthaler JA, Ollila DW. Breast conservation therapy versus mastectomy: shared decision-making strategies and overcoming decisional conflicts in your patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3133–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chang JS, et al. Influence of radiation dose to reconstructed breast following mastectomy on complication in breast cancer patients undergoing two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction. Front Oncol. 2019;9:243.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL. Radiation therapy and breast reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):395–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rigotti G, et al. Clinical treatment of radiotherapy tissue damage by lipoaspirate transplant: a healing process mediated by adipose-derived adult stem cells. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(5):1409–22; discussion 1423-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Oh E, Chim H, Soltanian HT. The effects of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy on the surgical outcomes of breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(10):E267–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Beane OS, Fonseca VC, Darling EM. Adipose-derived stem cells retain their regenerative potential after methotrexate treatment. Exp Cell Res. 2014;327(2):222–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Clough KB, et al. Reconstruction after conservative treatment for breast cancer: cosmetic sequelae classification revisited. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(7):1743–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chang EI, et al. Evaluating the feasibility of extended partial mastectomy and immediate reduction mammoplasty reconstruction as an alternative to mastectomy. Ann Surg. 2012;255(6):1151–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hamdi M. Oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast. Breast. 2013;22:S100–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Khoo D, et al. Nipple reconstruction: a regenerative medicine approach using 3D-printed tissue scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2019;25(2):126–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Senapati S, et al. Controlled drug delivery vehicles for cancer treatment and their performance. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2018;3:7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bala Balakrishnan P, et al. Star poly(epsilon-caprolactone)-based electrospun fibers as biocompatible scaffold for doxorubicin with prolonged drug release activity. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2018;161:488–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Levine SM, et al. Perforator flap breast reconstruction after unsatisfactory implant reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66(5):513–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kruper L, et al. Disparities in reconstruction rates after mastectomy: patterns of care and factors associated with the use of breast reconstruction in Southern California. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(8):2158–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kruper L, et al. Disparities in reconstruction rates after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): patterns of care and factors associated with the use of breast reconstruction for DCIS compared with invasive cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3210–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Xue AS, et al. Salvage of infected prosthetic breast reconstructions. Semin Plast Surg. 2016;30(2):55–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dorati R, et al. Biodegradable scaffolds for bone regeneration combined with drug-delivery systems in osteomyelitis therapy. Pharmaceuticals. 2017;10(4):Article 96, 1–21.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Findlay MW, et al. Tissue-engineered breast reconstruction: bridging the gap toward large-volume tissue engineering in humans. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(6):1206–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yuan Y, Ogawa R. Tissue-engineered breast reconstruction: bridging the gap toward large-volume tissue engineering in humans. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(1):236e–7e.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yuan Y, Gao J, Ogawa R. Mechanobiology and mechanotherapy of adipose tissue-effect of mechanical force on fat tissue engineering. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;3(12):e578.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Visscher LE, et al. Breast augmentation and reconstruction from a regenerative medicine point of view: state of the art and future perspectives. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2017;23(3):281–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kobayashi E, Hanazono Y, Kunita S. Swine used in the medical university: overview of 20 years of experience. Exp Anim. 2018;67(1):7–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kobayashi E, et al. The pig as a model for translational research: overview of porcine animal models at Jichi Medical University. Transplant Res. 2012;1(1):8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Morrison WA, et al. 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;6:238–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chhaya, MP, et al. Transformation of breast reconstruction via additive biomanufacturing. Sci. Rep. 2016;6, 28030.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chhaya MP, et al. Sustained regeneration of high-volume adipose tissue for breast reconstruction using computer aided design and biomanufacturing. Biomaterials. 2015;52:551–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Janzekovic
    • 1
  • Michael Wagels
    • 2
  • Dietmar W. Hutmacher
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Australian Centre for Complex Integrated Surgical Solutions, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Princess Alexandra HospitalBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, ARC Centre in Additive BiomanufacturingBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations