A Systematic Review of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma and Fat Graft Preparation Methods
Luck J., Smith OJ., Mosahebi A.
Systematic Review, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2017) — 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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2017)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 29632775
- PMCID
- PMC5889438
- DOI
- 10.1097/gox.0000000000001596
- Citations
- 20
Abstract (original English)
Background The addition of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to adipose tissue may improve fat graft survival, although graft retention rates vary markedly between studies. To what extent this outcome heterogeneity reflects differing methodological factors remains unknown. This systematic review aims to synthesize and critically review methodological approaches to autologous PRP and fat cotransplantation in both human and animal studies. Methods In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to April 2017. Data were extracted from all in vivo studies involving autologous PRP and fat cotransplantation. A secondary aim was to assess reporting of technical detail; authors were not contacted to provide missing data. Results From 335 articles, 23 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Some 21 were performed in humans and 2 in rabbits. Six studies were randomized control trials; the remainder reported on observational data. Methods of PRP extraction and activation varied markedly between studies. Fat graft preparation was comparatively more consistent. Methods of PRP and fat mixing differed significantly, especially with regards to relative volume/volume ratios. Conclusions Our study represents the first systematic review of methodological factors in autologous PRP and fat cotransplantation. It demonstrate
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.