SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysis

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Cell-Assisted and Conventional Lipotransfer in Facial Filling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Shen S., Huo H., Ren H., Shao Y.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 737 on Facial Rejuvenation, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2024) — 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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Aesthetic Plast Surg (2024)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
737
PMID
37794201
DOI
10.1007/s00266-023-03650-2

Abstract (original English)

We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) and conventional lipotransfer (CLT) in facial filling. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications until February 2023. All studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of cell-assisted and conventional lipotransfer in facial filling were included. We calculated pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes and pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs for binary outcomes. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the quality of studies. A total of 15 studies with 737 patients were included in this analysis. The fat survival rate and patient satisfaction rate were significantly higher in the CAL group compared to the CLT group (SMD: 3.04, 95% CI 2.09-3.99; RR: 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.67). However, no significant difference in complication rates (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.50-1.81) and a lower secondary operation rate in the CAL group (RR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.03-0.82) were observed. No obvious publication bias was observed in the funnel plot (Egger's P values = 0.084 and 0.403). Based on the pooled results, we tentatively conclude that CAL may have superior fat survival rate and satisfaction rate compared to CLT in facial filling, without compromising patient safety. However, the majority of the included studies were o

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
HumansPatient SatisfactionTreatment OutcomeAdipose TissueCosmetic TechniquesFaceFemale
Face & SkinFacial Rejuvenation
View on PubMedDOI

Related research