The efficiency of human fat products in wound healing: 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)

Wound development and healing involve intricate genetic and molecular processes, posing significant clinical management challenges. The objective of this study was to assess commonly used fat extracts' efficacy and safety (autologous fat, stromal vascular fraction and adipose-derived stem cells) in wound healing, particularly for refractory wounds, with the goal of providing evidence in clinical use. After a systematic review, 21 randomised controlled trials were included in our study. Based on the classification of human fat products, our meta-analysis revealed that the use of human fat products could speed healing rate, shorten healing time and achieve more complete healing, with statistically significant differences in outcome indicators when compared to conventional treatments. The analysis of histological findings across various studies indicated that fat extracts can promote epithelialization, collagen deposition and vascularization, thereby facilitating tissue regeneration and reducing inflammatory reactions. There were potential benefits to reducing patient pain levels after using adipose extracts. Furthermore, we analysed and summarised adverse events indicating the safe and effective clinical use of human fat products in wound treatment. Our research findings supported the efficiency of human fat products and demonstrated a high degree of safety in the clinical practi

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.