The oncological safety of autologous fat grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Goncalves R., Mota BS., Sobreira-Lima B., Ricci MD., Soares JM., Munhoz AM.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 8541, published in BMC Cancer (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- BMC Cancer (2022)
- Reported sample size
- 8541
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 35410265
- PMCID
- PMC9004160
- DOI
- 10.1186/s12885-022-09485-5
- Citations
- 24
Abstract (original English)
Objective To present a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis evaluating the oncological safety of autologous fat grafting (AFG). Summary background data AFG for breast reconstruction presents difficulties during follow-up radiological exams, and the oncological potential of grafted fat is uncertain. Previous studies confirmed that the fatty tissue could be transferred under a good condition suitable would not interfere with mammographic follow-up, although the issue of oncological safety remains. Methods We reviewed the literature published until 01/18/2021. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local recurrence (LR). We included studies that evaluated women with breast cancer who undergone surgery followed by reconstruction with AFG. We synthesized data using the inverse variance method on the log-HR (log of the hazard ratio) scale for time-to-event outcomes using RevMan. We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi 2 and I 2 statistics. Results Fifteen studies evaluating 8541 participants were included. The hazard ratios (HR) could be extracted from four studies, and there was no difference in OS between the AFG group and control (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.54, p = 0.71, I 2 = 58%, moderate certainty evidence), and publication bias was not detected. The HR for DFS could be extracted from six studies, and there was no difference b
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.