Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisPubMed

Letter to the Editor: The Efficacy of Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer Versus Conventional Lipotransfer in Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dominic JL., Kannan A., Ahmed A., Marquez RA., Asarian A., Keckeisen G.

Meta-analysis on Facial Rejuvenation, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Meta-analysis
Journal
Aesthetic Plast Surg (2021)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
34231024
DOI
10.1007/s00266-021-02452-8

Abstract (original English)

This is a letter to the editor about a meta-analysis titled "The efficacy of cell-assisted lipotransfer versus conventional lipotransfer in breast augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis" by Li and Chen published in the year 2021. The most frequently performed aesthetic procedure is breast augmentation surgery. In breast augmentation, cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) has received high recognition due to its positive outcomes. There are controversies in the medical literature on the use of CAL for breast augmentation. This meta-analysis by Li and Chen has concluded that CAL using ASC was superior to other methods as it improved fat survival rate in breast augmentation. We have written this letter to the editor of the Aesthetic Plastic Surgery journal about this meta-analysis because of its impactful information provided by this study to the medical literature for breast augmentation surgery using cell-assisted lipotransfer. Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

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.

How we grade evidence
EstheticsHumansMammaplastySystematic Reviews as TopicMeta-Analysis as Topic

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research