SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysis

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

Jefri ZE., Alashjaee RH., Almarri AK., Alghamdi AM., Halawani IR., Algoraini GS.

Meta-analysis on Face & Skin, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2026) — 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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Aesthetic Plast Surg (2026)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
PMID
41501426
DOI
10.1007/s00266-025-05511-6

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

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
HumansAdipose TissueGraft SurvivalStromal Vascular FractionTransplantation, AutologousTreatment OutcomeFemale
Face & Skin
View on PubMedDOI

Related research