SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Clinical Efficacy of Adipose-Derived Stem Cell-Enriched Lipotransfer Versus Conventional Fat Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sutar S., Patel D., Al Ani ZM., Mehta P.

Systematic Review on Facial Rejuvenation, published in Cureus (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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
Cureus (2026)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
PMID
42005195
DOI
10.7759/cureus.105479

Abstract (original English)

Autologous fat grafting is a standard procedure for soft tissue reconstruction, yet its clinical utility is often compromised by unpredictable resorption rates. Cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL), which enriches fat grafts with adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) or stromal vascular fraction (SVF), has been proposed to stabilise retention through improved neovascularisation and paracrine support. This systematic review evaluates the clinical efficacy, safety, and oncological outcomes of CAL compared to conventional lipofilling. A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Library databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing enriched versus non-enriched fat grafts in humans. The primary outcome was volumetric retention, while secondary outcomes included complications and oncological safety. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX) and Simple Meta-Analysis software (Learn Meta-Analysis LLC) to calculate standardised mean differences (SMD), and heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and the I² statistic. Fifteen studies meet

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
Face & SkinFacial Rejuvenation
View on PubMedDOI

Related research