Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Autologous Fat Transfer for Facial Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review on Technique, Efficacy, and Satisfaction

Groen JW., Krastev TK., Hommes J., Wilschut JA., Ritt MJPF., van der Hulst RRJW.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 73 on Scar, Facial Rejuvenation, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2017)
Reported sample size
73
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
29632784
PMCID
PMC5889440
DOI
10.1097/gox.0000000000001606
Citations
25

Abstract (original English)

Background Parallel to the steady decline in surgical aesthetic procedures to the face, dermal fillers seem to have gained a more prominent place in facial rejuvenation over the last couple of years. As a dermal, facial filler, autologous fat transfer (AFT) seems to have real potential because of the biocompatibility of adipose tissue besides being a procedure with few and primarily minor complications. This systematic review aims to evaluate the available evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of AFT for facial rejuvenation. Method A systematic review after the Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-Reviews-and-Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched up to December 2016, with no language restrictions imposed. Case series, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on relevant outcomes were included. Results Eighteen clinical articles were included, reporting on 3,073 patients in total over a mean follow-up period of 13.9 months. Meta-analysis showed an overall complication rate of 6% (95% CI 3.0-14.0), with hematoma/ecchymosis (5%), fat necrosis/oil cysts (2%), and irregular fat distribution and scars (both 2%) being among the most reported. No major complications were reported, and the overall patient satisfaction rate was 81%. Conclusion Although the evidence in this systematic revi

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