Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
Efficacy and safety of stromal vascular fraction on scar revision surgery: a prospective study
Kwon H., Lee S., Kim J., Song S.H.
Prospective double-blind study in 20 patients comparing an SVF-injected side with a saline-injected side of the same scar.
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
- 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
- Study type
- Prospective Study
- Journal
- Journal of Dermatological Treatment (2023)
- Country
- South Korea
- Sample size
- 20
- Follow-up
- 6 months
- PMID
- 36661928
- DOI
- 10.1080/09546634.2023.2171260
What was studied
Whether SVF improves scar revision outcomes versus saline in a within-patient comparison.
Methods
- • After scar revision by a single surgeon, 0.1 mL/cm of SVF was injected on the test side and saline on the control side.
- • Assessed with POSAS before and six months after surgery.
Key findings
- • The SVF side improved significantly in 11 of 12 POSAS items.
- • Four patients withdrew for personal reasons, leaving 16 for analysis.
Limitations
- • Small sample and only six months of follow-up.
- • Within-patient design may allow cross-over effects.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • Limited follow-up cannot indicate long-term outcomes.
Clinical interpretation
The within-patient design controls confounders well, making this relatively strong scar evidence.
Evidence level: Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals