Nanofat Use in Regenerative Medicine: A Systematic Literature Review and Consensus Recommendations from Expert Opinions.

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)

Objective: To report in vitro , preclinical, and clinical effectiveness of nanofat in adults undergoing reconstructive or functional surgery and to produce a series of consensus statements about nanofat definition by experts. Methods: We conducted a systematic review using PubMed and Web of Science database, retaining studies about nanofat alone. To produce consensus recommendations about nanofat, we invited experts to answer a survey about manufacturing, biological characteristics, and nomenclature of nanofat. Results: A review of 39 articles showed that nanofat seems to have strong regenerative potential. There were 16 studies about the clinical effectiveness of the nanofat in wound healing, aesthetic surgery, and functional disabilities. However, majority of applications lack robust clinical evidence, mainly due to the design of the clinical studies. The experts suggested that nanofat refers to lipoaspirate that benefits from a washing step, followed by emulsification (20-30 passes) with a connector size between 1.2 and 1.6 mm, and a final filtration step (pore size around 300-500 µm). Conclusion: Nanofat seems to have strong regenerative potentials but with a lack of robust clinical evidences. Our experts have suggested the first consensus about a definition of the nanofat that can be used by the academic societies in the coming years.

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.