Efficacy and Safety of Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer: 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)

Background The main drawback of autologous fat grafting, which is commonly used for soft-tissue augmentation, is the high resorption rate. Cell-assisted lipotransfer has been used to improve fat graft survival; however, evidence for its efficacy and safety is still lacking. Methods The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and EMBASE for clinical studies on cell-assisted lipotransfer published from 2008 through 2014. A meta-analysis was conducted to pool the estimated fat survival rate. Incidence of complications and incidence of multiple operations were calculated. Results Seventeen articles involving 387 cases were included in the systematic review. The pooled fat survival rate was significantly higher in the cell-assisted lipotransfer group than in the nonlipotransfer group (60 percent versus 45 percent, p = 0.0096). Complication incidence was similar in the two groups. Cell-assisted lipotransfer significantly improved fat survival in the face (by 19 percent) and reduced the incidence of multiple operations (by 13.6 percent). In breast fat grafting, however, fat survival was improved by only 9 percent, which was not statistically significant. Meanwhile, lipotransfer in breast cases was associated with a higher complication incidence compared with face cases (p Conclusions This study demonstrates that cell-assisted lipotransfer has better efficacy than conventiona

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.