Adipose-Derived Stem Cell-Enhanced versus Conventional Fat Grafting for Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Shimizu Y., Inoue Y., Sowa Y., Matsuura N., Matsuura R., Asato R.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 1426, published in Plast Reconstr Surg (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Plast Reconstr Surg (2025)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- 1426
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 40899825
- PMCID
- PMC12928805
- DOI
- 10.1097/PRS.0000000000012421
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Adipose-derived stem cell (ADSC)-enhanced fat grafting may improve graft retention and aesthetic outcomes in breast reconstruction, but its safety and efficacy remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared ADSC-enhanced with conventional fat grafting using rigorous methodology and predefined subgroup analyses. The authors searched 6 databases for comparative studies published from January of 2000 through November of 2024. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to assess outcomes, with subgroups defined by ADSC preparation method, follow-up duration, and reconstruction indication. Thirty-one studies (1426 patients: 634 ADSC-enhanced, 792 conventional) met inclusion criteria. ADSC-enhanced grafting significantly improved fat retention (mean difference [MD], 26.8% [95% CI, 18.2 to 35.5]; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence). Ex vivo-expanded ADSCs achieved the greatest improvement (MD, 64.6% [95% CI, 60.5 to 68.7]); stromal vascular fraction methods provided moderate gains (MD, 17.0% [95% CI, 8.6 to 25.4]; P < 0.001; I² = 78%). Complication rates were similar between groups (18.4% versus 17.2%; risk ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.77]; P = 0.78). Among 813 patients with previous breast cancer, recurrence rates did not differ significantly (5.3% versus 3.4%; risk ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 0.10 to 24.3]; P = 0.75). Patient-reported and aesthetic outcomes generally
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.