Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsRetrospective StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Effectiveness and Safety of Micro-Plasma Radiofrequency Treatment Combined With Autologous Chyle Fat Grafting Treatment for Hypertrophic Scars: A Retrospective Study

Zhang P., Pei H., Zhou G., Fu Q., Bai R., Lin P.

Retrospective Study with a reported sample of 73 on Scar, published in J Cosmet Dermatol (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • 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
Retrospective Study
Journal
J Cosmet Dermatol (2025)
Reported sample size
73
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39731280
PMCID
PMC11681299
DOI
10.1111/jocd.16728

Abstract (original English)

Background Hypertrophic scar (HS) is a fibroproliferative disorder resulting from abnormal healing of skin tissue after injury. Although various therapies are currently employed in clinical to treat HSs, there is no widely accepted standard therapy. Micro-plasma radiofrequency (MPR) and autologous chyle fat grafting are emerging treatments for this condition, and they have demonstrated promising therapeutic outcomes in clinical applications. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of combining MPR with autologous chyle fat grafting for the treatment of HSs. Methods We performed a retrospective study on patients diagnosed with HS in a single center between January 2020 and December 2023. According to the treatments, patients were divided into three groups, with 6 months follow-up. The single therapy group received MPR alone for two times. The combined therapy Group 1 first received the MPR treatment followed by the combined treatment. The combined therapy Group 2 first received the combined treatment and then received the MPR treatment. The effectiveness of treatment was evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS). The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to assess the patients' pain on the day of treatment and 1 day after treatment. Adverse events and complications were recorded to assess the safety of t

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueHumansCicatrix, HypertrophicTreatment OutcomeCombined Modality TherapyTransplantation, AutologousRetrospective StudiesAdultMiddle AgedFemale

Browse all related research

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

Related research