Effects of Nanofat in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review.

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)

Background Since nanofat was first introduced by Tonnard in 2013, numerous studies have reported positive findings with its use; however, concerns exist regarding its effects and mechanisms, and the various methods used to generate nanofat also remain unclear. The authors conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of nanofat grafting alone in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Methods The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for studies related to the use of nanofat grafting alone in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Outcomes of interest were all clinical results in humans or animals. Results Twelve studies were included. No meta-analysis was conducted due to the clinical heterogeneity of the studies. In general, included studies had a low level of evidence. Six studies ( n = 253 patients) showed significant improvements in scar characteristics based on Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, FACE-Q scale, physician assessment, patient satisfaction, and Vancouver Scar Scale scores. Four studies described the benefits of nanofat in skin rejuvenation (wrinkles, fine rhytides, pigmentation, and discoloration) through photographs, questionnaires, and indentation indices. Histologic evaluation illustrated overall increases in skin thickness, collagen, and elastic fibers. Three experimental studies showed the benefic

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.