SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Optimal Strategies for Autologous Fat Grafting in Breast Augmentation and Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Sun Y., Liu Q., Zhu J., Hu H., Lu L., Ying J.

Systematic Review on Facial Rejuvenation, published in Plast Reconstr Surg (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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
Systematic Review
Journal
Plast Reconstr Surg (2025)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
PMID
39874946
DOI
10.1097/PRS.0000000000011653

Abstract (original English)

Cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-assisted lipotransfer have been used to overcome the low survival rate of conventional lipotransfer. However, there is still insufficient evidence to determine which technique is the best strategy for autologous fat grafting in breast cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of traditional fat transplantation, CAL, and PRP-assisted lipotransfer. A systematic search was conducted in several databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Embase, concluding on January 21, 2024, to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were included after a rigorous selection process based on predefined criteria. Statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.0.5 software with the netmeta and dmetar packages, utilizing a frequentist approach with a random-effects model. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare different fat graft procedures with regard to fat survival rate and complication events. CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer were better than traditional fat grafting in terms of fat survival rate. In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications among the CAL, PRP, and traditional groups. Given the results of network meta-analysis, it appears that both CAL and PRP-ass

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
HumansMammaplastyAdipose TissueFemaleTransplantation, AutologousPlatelet-Rich PlasmaPostoperative ComplicationsGraft SurvivalTreatment Outcome
Facial Rejuvenation
View on PubMedDOI

Related research