Autologous Fat Grafting in Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review Highlighting the Need for Clinical Caution.
Seth I., Bulloch G., Gibson D., Chow O., Seth N., Mann GB.
Systematic Review with a reported sample of 3757, published in Plast Reconstr Surg (2023) — 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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Plast Reconstr Surg (2023)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- 3757
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 37166041
- DOI
- 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010614
- Citations
- 11
Abstract (original English)
Background Autologous fat grafting (AFG) is a breast augmentation method for treating volume and contour abnormalities. This systematic review aims to summarize complications, radiologic safety, volume retention, and patient satisfaction associated with AFG. Methods The PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Wiley library, clinical key/Elsevier, and EBSCO databases were searched for relevant studies from January of 2009 to March of 2022. Articles describing AFG for breast augmentation were selected based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adhered to, and the study was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. The Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions assessment was used to assess the quality of studies and the risk of bias was measured using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions. Results A total of 35 studies comprising 3757 women were included. The average follow-up duration was 24.5 months (range, 1 to 372 months). The overall complication rate was 27.8%, with fat necrosis making up 43.7% of all complications. Average fat volume injected was 300 mL (range, 134 to 610 mL), and average volume retention was 58% (range, 44% to 83%). Volume retent
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.