Stromal Vascular Fraction-Assisted Fat Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes.

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)

Autologous fat grafting is a cornerstone in plastic and reconstructive surgery, yet its efficacy remains limited by variable resorption rates. Stromal vascular fraction (SVF) has emerged as a promising adjunct to enhance graft survival. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SVF-enriched fat grafting compared with conventional fat grafting techniques. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Ovid Cochrane, and Google Scholar up to September 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing SVF-enriched and conventional fat grafting. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tool for randomized trials, and both the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled mean differences and risk ratios, with heterogeneity assessed using the I 2 statistic. Eighteen studies involving eight hundred ninety-three patients were included. SVF-enriched fat grafting demonstrated significantly higher fat retention rates compared with conventional grafting (mean difference: 17.20%; 95% CI: 11.26-23.15; p < 0.001), though heterogeneity remained high (I 2 = 98%). Subgrou

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.