Efficacy and Safety of Autologous Fat Transfer in Facial Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

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)

Importance The use of autologous fat transfer (AFT) or lipofilling for correcting contour deformities is seen as one of the major breakthroughs in reconstructive plastic surgery. Its applications in facial reconstructive surgery have been of particular interest owing to the prospect of achieving autologous reconstruction by a minimally invasive approach. However, its unpredictability and variable degree of resorption have limited its utility and much skepticism still exists regarding its efficacy. Furthermore, more than 2 decades of clinical research have produced a highly fragmented body of evidence that has not been able to provide definite answers. Objective To investigate the safety and efficacy of AFT in facial reconstruction through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 11, 2017. Study selection All published studies investigating the efficacy and safety of AFT in facial reconstructive surgery. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers performed data extraction systematically, adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Summary measures were pooled in a random-effects model meta-analysis. Main outcomes and measures The patient and surgeon satisfaction, graft survival, number of AFT sessions, and the incidence of AFT-related complications were the main

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.