Autologous Nanofat Indications in Wound Healing: 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)

Introduction : Chronic wounds and pathologic scars remain a persistent challenge in plastic surgery. Conventional treatments can be costly and inconsistent, prompting interest in regenerative approaches that utilize autologous tissue. Emulsified fat produces nanofat through mechanical processing and contains adipose-derived stem cells, stromal vascular fractions, extracellular matrix proteins, cytokines and growth factors. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the use of autologous nanofat for wound healing and scar management, with emphasis on preparation techniques, treatment indications, and outcomes. Methods : A comprehensive PubMed search with no date restrictions was conducted in January 2026 using MeSH terms and keywords related to nanofat and wound-healing applications. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers using the Rayyan platform. Eligible studies evaluated nanofat for wound healing in human or animal subjects; non-English articles, studies not involving nanofat, editorials, and conference abstracts were excluded. The extracted data included study characteristics, participant numbers, treatment details, indications, adjunct therapies, follow-up duration, outcomes, and complications. Studies were grouped by clinical application, with individual reports included in multiple categories when relevant. Results : The search identified 53 recor

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.