Autologous fat grafting for cosmetic temporal augmentation: a systematic review

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 Autologous fat grafting for temporal augmentation is increasingly popular in aesthetic surgery. However, its high absorption rate, unpredictable volume retention rate, and potential safety risks are significant drawbacks. Evaluation methods for the fat graft survival rate, especially volume retention in the temporal area, vary widely and tend to be more subjective than objective. Therefore, this systematic review aims to analyze the unpredictable volume retention rate, associated safety concerns, and the various assessment strategies following autologous fat grafting for cosmetic temporal augmentation. Methods We conducted a systematic review of manuscripts listed in the MEDLINE/PubMed database on autologous fat grafting for cosmetic temporal augmentation. Articles had to be available in full text and written in English. Studies not presenting human data or not discussing cosmetic indications were excluded. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results Eight articles were included. The average fat volume injected into each temporal region was 10.69 ml (range 6-17.5) on the right and 10.64 ml (range 5.9-17.4) on the left side. All included articles utilized photographic documentation before and after treatment, along with various questionnaires and scales (37.5% Likert Scale, 12.5% Hollowness Severity

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.