Autologous fat grafting: current state of the art and critical review.
Ross RJ., Shayan R., Mutimer KL., Ashton MW.
Narrative Review, published in Ann Plast Surg (2014) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- 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
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Ann Plast Surg (2014)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 23788141
- DOI
- 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31827aeb51
- Citations
- 51
Abstract (original English)
Background Despite the widespread use of autologous fat grafting in both reconstructive and cosmetic surgery, volume retention remains a significant problem. We aimed to critically appraise the current body of literature in fat grafting to provide a framework to guide application and comparison. Method Search of scientific databases and gray literature was conducted. Articles examining nonadipogenic applications of adipose tissue and those specific to breast reconstruction were excluded. Results One hundred three articles were included. These fell under the headings of donor site, effect of infiltration solution, harvest method, effect of centrifugation, reinjection method, supplementation, the role of adipose-derived stem cells, and scaffolding. Conclusions Despite the significant research effort in this field, there remains no consensus as to the optimum technique. This stems from the vast array of research methods and short follow-up durations. Further, extrapolation of in vitro results to clinical settings has led to many conflicting practices.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.