Volume retention rate after breast autogenous fat grafting and related influencing factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Hu S., Xu H.
Meta-analysis, published in J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2023) — 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
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2023)
- Country
- Netherlands
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 38160589
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.12.003
- Citations
- 10
Abstract (original English)
The volume retention of breast autologous fat grafting is unpredictable, and the volume retention rate and related influencing factors have not been systematically reviewed. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the volume retention rate and related influencing factors of breast autologous fat grafting, which is for reconstructive or esthetic purposes. Literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception of study to December 2022. Sensitivity analysis was performed for all outcomes. Begg's test was performed to test publication bias. Subgroup analysis was performed based on population, method of fat preparation, method of volume measurement, number of fat grafting, and injected fat grafting volume. A total of 25 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The follow-up time ranged from 3 to 36 months. Results showed that the pooled volume retention rate at the latest follow-up point was 54% [95% confidence interval (CI): 48.5%-59.5%]. Based on the fat preparation methods, the pooled rate was 51.5% (95%CI: 41.5%-61.5%) for centrifugation, which was higher than that for sedimentation [38.7% (95%CI: 30.9%-46.5%)]. In addition, the enrichment of stromal vascular fraction obtained after centrifugation was found to be associated with higher volume retention rate
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.