In short
- An implant gives defined, predictable volume. It is the option when you want a noticeable change in size.
- Your own fat gives a discreet increase, with a natural feel and no foreign body, at the cost of part of the grafted volume being reabsorbed: here we work on a take rate of 60–80% and on two sessions as the usual number.
- 🔑 The major complications of fat grafting are notably low: in a review of 2,073 patients, haematoma 0.5%, infection 0.6% and seroma 0.1% — and none of those patients needed revision surgery.
- ⚠️ In exchange, fat leaves its mark on imaging: oil cysts in 6.5%, calcifications in 4.5% and fat necrosis in 1.2%.
- 🔑 And from that comes the figure nobody publishes: 16.4% of patients were referred for additional imaging and 3.2% for a biopsy. The authors stress that those findings had no therapeutic consequences.
- An implant is not a lifetime device. The FDA says so expressly, and in the follow-up studies between 20% and 40% of patients had further surgery in the first 8–10 years.
- The fat that survives is yours and it stays — but it changes with your weight, and the breast goes on ageing just the same.
- Fat requires somewhere to take it from. Without enough donor fat, there is no lipofilling.
There is no better option. There are two techniques that solve different problems, and choosing wrongly is the fastest way to end up disappointed by a procedure that worked perfectly.
This page puts them side by side with what each achieves, what each costs in complications and one thing that is almost never compared: what each does to your check-ups.
First: what each one requires
| Implant | Your own fat | |
|---|---|---|
| Volume | Defined and predictable | Moderate; part is reabsorbed |
| Change in size | Whatever is planned | Discreet, usually one cup size |
| Sessions | One | Usually two |
| Prerequisite | Enough covering tissue | Enough donor fat |
| Foreign body | Yes | No |
| Added effect | — | Reshapes the donor area |
| Long term | Not a lifetime device | What takes, stays |
🔑 The question that settles the decision is not “which is better” but “how much do I want to go up”. If you want a marked change, the implant is the answer. If you want to go up a little and for nobody to notice you have had anything done, lipofilling usually fits better.
What each costs in complications
This is where the comparison gets interesting, because the two profiles are not only different in magnitude: they are different in kind.
Fat grafting
A systematic review gathered 22 studies with 2,073 patients having aesthetic augmentation with fat, including only consecutive patient series:
| Complication | Frequency |
|---|---|
| Haematoma | 0.5% |
| Infection | 0.6% |
| Seroma | 0.1% |
| Palpable cysts | 2.0% (67% treated by aspiration) |
And one sentence worth highlighting: none of the patients with major complications needed revision surgery.
The implant
The profile is different and it is set out in detail on the risks page. The headlines:
- The FDA lists 26 local complications occurring in at least 1% of patients.
- Capsular contracture grade III–IV at around 7%, and grade II at around 9%.
- Rupture detected in around 9.5%.
- Further surgery in 20 to 40% within the first 8–10 years, and as many as 1 in 5 needing the implant removed within the first ten.
- One uncommon risk that fat does not carry: BIA-ALCL lymphoma, explained on its own page.
⚠️ Read that way, it looks as though fat wins clearly. And then the other column appears.
🔑 What each option does to your check-ups
It is the comparison almost nobody makes and probably the most useful on this page.
Fat leaves findings on imaging
In that same review of 2,073 patients, the radiological changes after grafting were:
- Oil cysts: 6.5%
- Calcifications: 4.5%
- Fat necrosis: 1.2%
And the practical consequences:
- ⚠️ Risk of being referred for additional imaging to rule out malignant change: 16.4%.
- ⚠️ Risk of being referred for a biopsy: 3.2%.
The authors conclude that rates of radiological change are high after fat grafting, but that those changes do not appear to have any therapeutic consequence for patients.
🔑 Translated into what happens to a person: one in six will at some point get a call to repeat or extend an imaging test, and the vast majority of those calls will come to nothing. That is not a medical complication, and it is a fright and another appointment.
And a comparison that puts it in perspective
A blinded study compared the mammograms of 27 women with fat grafting to the breast against 23 women who had had a breast reduction, assessed by eight specialist radiologists who did not know which group each image belonged to.
The result: the differences were not significant for oil cysts, benign calcifications and calcifications prompting biopsy. And on the other hand, scarring and masses requiring biopsy were significantly more frequent in the breast reduction group, which also scored worse on the BI-RADS scale and received more aggressive follow-up recommendations.
🔑 In other words: fat grafting produces fewer radiographic changes than a breast reduction, a procedure nobody questions on these grounds. That is the context missing when interference with imaging is presented as an argument against.
The implant has its own column too
With implants, mammography requires specific displacement views in order to see the gland the implant hides, and you have to say that you have them when booking the appointment. On top of that, it adds a form of monitoring fat does not require: watching for silent rupture, which gives no symptoms and is only detected by imaging.
All of that is in the page on living with implants and in the one on lipofilling and breast imaging.
And cancer safety
It is the question that holds lipofilling back, and it has an answer.
The concern came from the laboratory: grafted fat stimulates the formation of blood vessels and the regeneration of tissue, and it was feared that this might favour the growth of a tumour. The clinical data have not confirmed it, in a large meta-analysis of patients reconstructed after breast cancer.
🔑 It is worth spelling out, because it is the doubt that holds people back most and the answer is reassuring: fat transfer has not been shown to increase tumour lesions, or to interfere with the detection of a malignant lesion.
What does happen is something else, and it is what you need to know: infiltrated fat shows up on imaging and can lend itself to confusion. It does not hide anything or delay anything; it leaves findings of its own that a radiologist has to interpret, which is why it is always worth telling them you have had a graft. It is in what the radiologist sees after a fat graft.
It is set out — with the qualification that the setting there is reconstruction and not a healthy breast — in the page on augmentation with your own fat.
How the decision is made
Without replacing an assessment, these four questions settle almost every case:
1. How much do you want to go up? A marked change is implant territory. Going up a little and naturally is lipofilling.
2. Do you have fat to take it from? Without enough donor fat there is no lipofilling, however slim the patient asking for it.
3. How much of your own tissue do you have to cover an implant? With little cover, an implant is felt, shows through and is more visible. That is where the third way comes in: hybrid augmentation, which combines the two.
4. How many operations are you prepared to take on? One for the implant; possibly more than one for lipofilling — and, in exchange, foreseeably one or two more over a lifetime if you choose an implant.
Which of the two is done here?
Both. And the criterion for choosing is not a house preference: it is what the patient wants to achieve as a result. That is why the consultation is not about recommending one, but about explaining the pros and cons of each in detail until the choice is yours and is informed. The four questions above are the script for that conversation.
Book an appointment
You can book your own appointment. Pick the day and time from the free slots in the diary, in a panel that opens right here, without leaving this page.
Frequently asked questions
How much does the breast go up with your own fat?
A moderate increase, usually around one cup size and often spread over more than one session, because part of the grafted volume is reabsorbed. For a marked change, the option is an implant.
How much fat is reabsorbed?
Some of it, and it varies between patients. Here we plan on a take rate of 60–80%, meaning that between 20% and 40% of what is grafted does not stay. It is the central limitation of the technique and the reason two sessions are the norm.
Is lipofilling safer than an implant?
Its major complications are notably lower — haematoma 0.5%, infection 0.6%, seroma 0.1% in a review of 2,073 patients, none needing further surgery. In exchange it produces more findings on imaging: 16.4% referrals for additional imaging and 3.2% for biopsy, with no therapeutic consequences.
Does fat interfere with detecting breast cancer?
It produces findings — oil cysts, calcifications — that a radiologist has to interpret. In a blinded study with eight radiologists, those findings were less problematic than those of a breast reduction, with better BI-RADS scores and less aggressive follow-up.
Does fat last forever?
What takes, stays, because it is your own tissue. But it changes with your weight and the breast goes on ageing just the same. An implant, by contrast, is not a lifetime device: between 20% and 40% of patients had further surgery in the first 8–10 years.
I am slim. Can I have lipofilling?
Only if there is enough donor fat to harvest. It is the requirement that rules out most candidates, and it does not depend on willingness but on anatomy.
Can I combine the two?
Yes, and it has an indication of its own: hybrid augmentation, which uses a smaller implant and fat around it to improve the cover. It has its own page.
Sources
- Ørholt M, et al. Complications after Breast Augmentation with Fat Grafting: A Systematic Review. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2020. PMID 32097306. — 22 studies with 2,073 patients having aesthetic augmentation with fat grafting, including only consecutive patient series: haematoma 0.5%, infection 0.6% and seroma 0.1%, with none of those patients needing revision surgery; palpable cysts as the most frequent minor complication (2.0%), treated by aspiration in 67% of cases; radiological changes with oil cysts in 6.5%, calcifications in 4.5% and fat necrosis in 1.2%; a 16.4% risk of referral for additional imaging and 3.2% for biopsy; the authors conclude that radiological changes are frequent but do not appear to have therapeutic consequences.
- Rubin JP, et al. Mammographic changes after fat transfer to the breast compared with changes after breast reduction: a blinded study. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2012. PMID 22261561. — 27 women with breast fat grafting and 23 who had a reduction, with mammograms at 12 months assessed blind by eight specialist radiologists: differences not significant for oil cysts, benign calcifications and calcifications prompting biopsy; scarring and masses requiring biopsy significantly more frequent in the reduction group; higher BI-RADS scores and more aggressive follow-up recommendations after reduction.
- Risks and Complications of Breast Implants. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, updated 14 December 2023. fda.gov. — The list of local complications occurring in at least 1% of patients; implants are not lifetime devices; the silent nature of most silicone gel ruptures; calcifications around the implant can be mistaken for cancer on a mammogram.
Book your consultation
The four questions on this page are answered by an examination: how much you want to go up, how much donor fat you have, how much covering tissue and how many operations you are prepared to take on. At our practice in Valencia those four things are measured and the recommendation follows from them, which is sometimes the third way.
Clinical confirmation by the surgeon
Registration no. 46/4624077
Registration no. 46/4624503
