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

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)

Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions Given the results of network meta-analysi

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.