SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Arterial Embolism After Facial Fat Grafting: A Systematic Literature Review.

Moellhoff N., Kuhlmann C., Frank K., Kim BS., Conte F., Cotofana S.

Systematic Review with a reported sample of 16 on Stroke Research, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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
Systematic Review
Journal
Aesthetic Plast Surg (2023)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
16
PMID
37563433
DOI
10.1007/s00266-023-03511-y

Abstract (original English)

While autologous fat grafting of the face is considered a generally safe procedure, severe complications such as arterial embolism (AE) have been reported. To summarize data on injection-related visual compromise, stroke, and death caused by arterial embolism after facial fat transplantation. Plastic surgery societies were contacted for reports on AE after autologous facial fat injection. In addition, a systematic literature review was performed. Data extracted included study design, injection site/technique, symptoms, management, outcome, and etiology. 61 patients with a mean age of 33.56 ± 11.45 years were reported. Injections targeted the glabella or multiple facial regions (both n = 16/61, 26.2%) most commonly, followed by injections in the temples (n = 10/61, 16.4%) and the forehead (n = 9/61, 14.8%). The mean volume injected was 21.5 ± 21.5 ml. Visual symptoms were described most frequently (n = 24/58, 41.4%) followed by neurological symptoms (n = 20/58, 34.5%), or both (n = 13/58, 22.4%). Ophthalmic artery (OA, n = 26/60, 43.3%), anterior or middle cerebral artery (CA, n = 11/60, 18.3%) or both (n = 14/60, 23.3%) were most frequently occluded. Outcome analysis revealed permanent vision loss in all patients with OA occlusion (n = 26/26, 100%), neurological impairment in most patients with CA occlusion (n = 8/10, 80%), and vision loss in most patients suffering from both O

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 evidence
AdultHumansMiddle AgedYoung AdultAdipose TissueBlindnessEmbolismFaceForeheadRetrospective Studies
Face & SkinSystemic / IVStroke Research
View on PubMedDOI

Related research