Autologous Fat Injection for Augmentation Rhinoplasty: 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 has become more frequently used for nasal volume augmentation and nasal correction. Nasal lipofilling refers to the use of injectable autologous fat grafts for nonsurgical aesthetic corrections. Objectives This systematic review aims to assess the satisfaction, complication, and retention rates of fat injection in nasal shape corrections. Methods The authors searched PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar up to and including October 2020 with no time and language restrictions for pertinent materials. Two authors conducted a duplicate searching process independently to determine proper materials based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. One author retrieved the following data from the finally included studies based on a predefined checklist worksheet. Results The included studies report data from a total of 564 patients undergoing nasal fat injection in 12 studies. The mean score in our included materials was 6.08 with a range of 4 to 7 scores. In most of our included materials, no complication was reported for the peri/postsurgical period. Although some papers reported manageable complications such as an insufficient volume or decreased volume by resorption, tip excess and supratip fillness, and mild displacement, more than half of our included materials reported on patient satisfaction with aesthetic results of fat injection. The satisfaction rates we

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.