Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMedOpen access

Autologous fat grafting for scars, healing and pain: a review.

Riyat H., Touil LL., Briggs M., Shokrollahi K.

Systematic Review with a reported sample of 1158 on Scar, Chronic Inflammation, published in Scars Burn Heal (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Scars Burn Heal (2017)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
1158
Source database
PubMed
PMID
29799544
PMCID
PMC5965331
DOI
10.1177/2059513117728200
Citations
28

Abstract (original English)

Introduction Current guidelines suggest a multimodal approach to treating scars but there is no gold standard for treatment; however, there is exciting therapeutic potential for the use of autologous fat grafting (AFG). Functional and aesthetic improvements have been reported, including pain relief and scar quality improvement. Aims To explore the current evidence regarding the use of AFG in hypertrophic and painful scars. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted using 11 MeSH terms in PubMed, Medline and EMBASE. English studies that used AFG to treat scars in human participants were included. Results A total of 746 studies were found and 23 studies (from 2008 to 2016) were included: five studies were evidence level V; nine studies were evidence level IV; eight were evidence level III; and one study was evidence level II. A total of 1158 patients were assessed for improvement in scar characteristics including colour, thickness, volume, pain and restoration of function at affected sites, following treatment. Positive outcomes were noted for all parameters and a significant improvement in AFG's analgesic effect was recorded in 567 out of 966 patients, P Discussion AFG is a minimally invasive and safe approach to treating scars, a promising alternative to surgical excision. The technique of blunt cannula insertion optimises the release of scar retraction, which

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research