Efficacy of stromal vascular fraction in the treatment of scars: 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)

Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of stromal vascular fraction (SVF) in treating scars using the latest meta-analysis. We used PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science to search the studies used to evaluate the efficacy of SVF in scar treatment. At least one of the following outcome measures were reported: vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, relief, pliability, surface area, pain, itching and color. A total of four eligible articles comprising 145 patients (64 SVF patients and 81 non-SVF patients) were included. The findings of this meta-analysis indicated that SVF had significant therapeutic effects in terms of vascularity (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -1.12, -0.02; p = 0.04), itching (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -0.61, -0.13; p = 0.002), POSAS (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -5.93, -1.47; p = 0.001), and thickness (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -1.04, -0.35; p < 0.001). In terms of OSAS (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -9.14, 0.59; p = 0.09), pigmentation (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -1.02, 0.06; p = 0.08), relief (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -1.14, 0.16; p = 0.14), surface area (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -0.91, 0.26; p = 0.27), PSAS (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -7.20, 0.49; p = 0.09), pain (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -0.87, 0.07; p = 0.10), pliability (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -0.57, 0.01; p = 0.06), and color (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -1.78, 0.48; p = 0.26), there were no significant statistical differences. In view of the heterogeneity and potential selective bias, further large-scale, prospective, and

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.