Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Different Assisted-fat Transplantation Methods: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Li Y., Lv Q., Gu Y., Qi Y., Li J., Li Z.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 2244, published in Aesthet Surg J (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Aesthet Surg J (2026)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- 2244
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 41732088
- DOI
- 10.1093/asj/sjag048
Abstract (original English)
To compare the outcomes of different supplements to autologous fat grafting for volume augmentation in plastic and reconstructive area, the mainstream databases were searched for qualified randomized controlled trails, with the terms of "fat transplantation", "lipotransfer", "platelet-rich plasma", "platelet-rich fibrin", "stromal vascular fraction", "mesenchymal stem cells", "growth factor" and "Botox". The primary outcome assessed the volume retention rate of various assisted-fat transplantation methods, and second outcomes of incidence of complications, effective rate, secondary operation rate and postoperative patient satisfaction were also calculated. A total of 47 articles with 2244 participants were incorporated. It is important to note that not all assisted fat grafting techniques were superior to placebo in increasing fat volume retention. Significant improvements were observed only in the Stem Cells, PRP, and SVF groups. Among these, Stem Cell-enriched grafts demonstrated the highest likelihood of being the most effective intervention, suggesting considerable clinical potential. Subgroup analyses based on recipient sites and sensitivity analysis revealed the consistent conclusion, which enhanced the robustness of the conclusion. Assisted-fat transplantation methods also exhibited various impacts on secondary outcomes. The CGF procedure presented the fewest surgical co
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.