3D Printing May Personalize Future of Breast Reconstruction

In an interview with CURE, Dr. Evan Garfein, chief of the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of surgery at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, discussed how 3D printing and tissue-engineered technologies could transform the future of breast reconstruction.

He noted that these innovations are building upon an already advanced field where patients can choose from several reconstructive options, including implants or procedures using their own skin and fat. The goal, he said, remains to create a natural look and feel while minimizing recovery time, risk, and physical toll.

Garfein highlighted that while current silicone implants are safe and reliable, they still present potential complications. Future bioprinted and tissue-engineered implants could reduce those risks and allow for more personalized and less invasive reconstruction.

Can you discuss how you see 3D printing and tissue-engineered alternatives shaping the future of breast reconstruction?

3D printing and bioprinting are really exciting adjuncts to what we currently do, which is already quite advanced. Today, we can reconstruct a breast with an implant or with skin and fat from different parts of a patient’s body, depending on factors like breast size and body composition. We have a wide range of options to offer patients, which is important; if you only have one option, it’s not much of a menu to choose from.

Our patients are fortunate that, despite going through such a difficult experience, they have choices when it comes to reconstruction. Currently, there are nearly a dozen different ways to reconstruct a breast after mastectomy, depending on how you define them.

Looking to the future, our goal in breast reconstruction is to create something that looks and feels like a natural breast. There’s no functional need beyond that. In plastic surgery, we often talk about “form and function,” and here, the function is aesthetic.

Ideally, we want to make each reconstructive method better and “cheaper” for the patient. When I say cheap or expensive, I’m not talking about money; I’m referring to the cost to the patient’s body, time, or risk. Reconstructions that are riskier, require long hospital stays, or involve taking tissue from another part of the body are more “expensive.” But sometimes those options are worth it because they offer the best results. For example, using abdominal skin and fat can produce excellent outcomes in some patients, while implants are better and less invasive in others.

If we extend this concept to bioprinted reconstructive or aesthetic implants, the potential is even greater. Those could make reconstruction “cheaper” in terms of physical toll and possibly yield better results than what we have now. Silicone implants are reliable and safe for most patients, but they’re not perfect, as there are risks of infection, capsular contracture, or implant malposition.

If we could create an implant that’s not silicone, doesn’t carry those risks, and can be customized or taken “off the shelf,” that would be a major step forward. That’s where I see the future heading, and it’s an area we’re already beginning to explore today.

Transcript has been edited for clarity and conciseness.

For more news on cancer updates, research and education, don’t forget to subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.