Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisPubMed

The Efficacy of Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer Versus Conventional Lipotransfer in Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Li M., Chen C.

Meta-analysis on Facial Rejuvenation, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Aesthetic Plast Surg (2021)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
33452543
DOI
10.1007/s00266-020-02123-0
Citations
20

Abstract (original English)

Background Cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) is novel and controversial technique for breast augmentation. Objective This review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of CAL as compared with conventional lipotransfer. Methods PubMed databases were searched with no restrictions for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with control groups. Keywords included "fat graft," "lipotransfer," "lipofilling," "autologous fat," "fat transplantation," "stromal vascular fraction (SVF)," "stem cell," "adipose tissue-derived stromal cell (ADSC)," "adipose tissue-derived stromal cell (ASC)," "called adipose derived progenitor cells (ADRC)," "cell-assisted," "progenitor-enriched," "cell-enhanced" and "breast." Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.3) was used to compute the pooled effect estimates for fat survival rate and complication rates. Outcomes were expressed as standard mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed based on different methods of cell-enhanced fat preparation. Results Six studies were included (n total = 353 adult patients). The fat survival rate was significantly higher in the CAL group than in the control group (SMD = 1.79, 95% CI = 0.28, 3.31; P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in complication rates between the CAL group and the control group

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
AdipocytesAdipose TissueAdultBreastHumansMammaplastyStromal Cells

Browse all related research

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

Related research