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

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)

Purpose We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) and conventional lipotransfer (CLT) in facial filling. Methods 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. Results 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). Conclusions 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 maj

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.