Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMedOpen access

Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer: A Systematic Review of Its Efficacy.

Toyserkani NM., Quaade ML., Sørensen JA.

Systematic Review on Facial Rejuvenation, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2016) — 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
Aesthetic Plast Surg (2016)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
26893280
PMCID
PMC4819466
DOI
10.1007/s00266-016-0613-1
Citations
64

Abstract (original English)

Introduction Autologous lipotransfer is seen as an ideal filler for soft tissue reconstruction. The main limitation of this procedure is the unpredictable resorption and volume loss of the fat graft. In the recent decade, an increasing amount of research has focused on the use of adipose tissue-derived stromal cells (ASCs) to enrich the fat graft, a procedure termed cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL). The aim of this review was to systematically review the current preclinical and clinical evidence for the efficacy of CAL compared with conventional lipotransfer. Materials and methods A systematic search was performed on PubMed and other databases to identify all preclinical and clinical studies where CAL with ASCs was compared with conventional lipotransfer. A total of 20 preclinical studies and seven clinical studies were included in the review. Results The preclinical studies consisted of 15 studies using immunodeficient animal models and five studies using immunocompetent studies. Seventeen studies examined weight/volume retention of which 15 studies favored CAL over conventional lipotransfer. One clinical study did not find any efficacy of CAL and the remaining six studies favored CAL. Conclusions The present evidence suggests that there is a big potential for CAL in reconstructive surgery; however, the present studies are so far still of low quality with inherent weaknesses.

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
AdipocytesAdipose TissueAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicDisease Models, AnimalHumansPlastic Surgery ProceduresStromal Cells

Browse all related research

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

Related research