Autologous fat grafting auxiliary methods in craniofacial deformities: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

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

Abstract (original English)

Background To increase autologous fat grafting (AFG) volume retention, current advancements focus on adding an auxiliary method to the process. This review aimed to address which auxiliary methods prove to be the best in terms of volume retention outcome. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed in five medical databases, including PubMed, Proquest, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ScienceDirect, until March 2024, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results Twenty-six studies were included in this review, and seven studies were included in the network meta-analysis. Reported auxiliary methods include stromal vascular fractions (SVFs) [12.20, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.04 to 24.35], adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ADSCs) (24.20, 95% CI 4.14 to 44.26), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) [24.10, 95% CI -2.68 to 50.88]. When compared with the standard AFG approach, SVFs (p = 0.049) and ADSCs (p = 0.018) were more successful in retaining volume. However, PRP (p = 0.077) was not as effective. The comparison between auxiliary approaches, ADSCs vs PRP (p = 0.994), ADSCs vs SVFs (p = 0.271), and PRP vs SVF (p = 0.383), did not show any significant differences. Subgroup analysis revealed that the use of volumetric measuring methods has a substantial impact on the reported volume retention (p Conclusion Enha

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.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.