Use of autologous fat grafting in reconstruction following mastectomy and breast conserving surgery: An updated systematic review protocol
Agha RA., Borrelli MR., Dowlut N., Butt MF., Freeman S., Orkar TE.
Systematic Review, published in Int J Surg Protoc (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
- Int J Surg Protoc (2017)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 31851753
- PMCID
- PMC6913570
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.isjp.2017.08.003
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Introduction Use of autologous fat grafting (AFG) for breast reconstructive surgery is gaining acceptance, but concerns regarding its efficacy and safety remain. We present a protocol for a systematic review that aims to update the findings since our previous systematic review on a number of outcomes of AFG. Methods The systematic review has been registered a priori (UIN: reviewregistry308). All study designs, including randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-controlled studies and case reports/series, reporting original data, on women undergoing AFG for breast reconstruction following mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, will be included. Six categorical outcomes will be assessed: oncological; clinical; aesthetic/functional; patient-reported; process; and radiological.The search strategy will be devised to investigate 'fat grafting and breast reconstruction'. Electronic databases will be searched, 01 April 2014 to 21 August 2017: PubMed, MEDLINE®, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SciELO, The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (DARE), the Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Databases and Cochrane Groups, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials Database, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Internati
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.