SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Efficacy and safety of autologous cell-based therapies for atrophic acne scar treatment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with in-depth methodological and clinical insights.

Zhang S., Ren Y., Hong X., Shi Y., Si T., Zhang X.

Systematic Review with a reported sample of 500 on Chronic Wound, Scar, published in Front Cell Dev Biol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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
Systematic Review
Journal
Front Cell Dev Biol (2026)
Country
Switzerland
Reported sample size
500
PMID
41890910
DOI
10.3389/fcell.2026.1773607

Abstract (original English)

Atrophic acne scars represent a therapeutic challenge with significant psychosocial impact. Autologous cell-based therapies, such as stromal vascular fraction (SVF) and the ReCell® system, aim to address the underlying dermal matrix deficiency through regenerative mechanisms. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an updated and comprehensive quantitative synthesis of their standalone efficacy and safety. We conducted a systematic search of multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang) from inception to December 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split-face studies comparing autologous cell therapies (SVF, ReCell, fat grafting) with control treatments (e.g., saline, laser alone) for atrophic acne scars. The primary outcome was the change in the ECCA grading score. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, objective scar metrics, healing time, and adverse events. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Eighteen studies involving 500 participants were included. Autologous cell therapies significantly reduced ECCA scores compared to controls (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = -1.25, 95% CI: -1.80 to -0.70, p < 0.001; I 2 = 65%). Subgroup analysis indicated the largest effect size for SVF-based therapies (SMD = -1.40). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in intervention groups (Risk Ratio [RR] = 1.45, 95% CI

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
Face & SkinChronic WoundScar
View on PubMedDOI

Related research