Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisPubMed

Cell-assisted lipotransfer: Friend or foe in fat grafting? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Laloze J., Varin A., Gilhodes J., Bertheuil N., Grolleau JL., Brie J.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 696 on Facial Rejuvenation, published in J Tissue Eng Regen Med (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
J Tissue Eng Regen Med (2017)
Country
England
Reported sample size
696
Source database
PubMed
PMID
28719946
DOI
10.1002/term.2524
Citations
64

Abstract (original English)

Autologous fat grafting is a common procedure for soft-tissue reconstruction but is associated with a graft resorption rate ranging from 20% to 80%. To improve the fat graft survival rate, a new technique, called cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL), was developed. With CAL, fat is injected along with adipose-derived stromal cells that are assumed to improve fat survival rate. We conducted an evidence-based meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CAL as compared with conventional autologous fat grafting (non-CAL). The databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for reports of clinical trials, case series, and cohorts available from 2008 to 2016. We conducted a meta-analysis of the efficacy of CAL with data analysis concerning fat survival rate. The incidence of complications and the need for multiple procedures were evaluated to determine the safety of CAL. We identified 25 studies (696 patients) that were included in the systematic review; 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of CAL. The fat survival rate was significantly higher with CAL than non-CAL (64% vs. 44%, p < .0001) independent of injection site (breast and face). This benefit of CAL was significant for only injection volumes <100 ml (p = .03). The two groups did not differ in frequency of multiple procedures after fat gr

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
Adipose TissueAnimalsHumansLipidsPublication BiasReproducibility of ResultsStem Cells

Browse all related research

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

Related research