SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Cell-Assisted and Conventional Lipotransfer in Facial Filling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing fat graft survival: from adipose-derived stem cell mechanisms to next-generation regenerative strategies.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Concentrated Deoiled Fat: A Novel Method of Fat Processing to Improve Fat Graft Survival-A Basic Research.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aim to compare the efficacy and safety of cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) and conventional lipotransfer (CLT) in facial filling.
methodsThe PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications until February 2023. All studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of cell-assisted and conventional lipotransfer in facial filling were included. We calculated pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes and pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs for binary outcomes. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the quality of studies.
resultsA total of 15 studies with 737 patients were included in this analysis. The fat survival rate and patient satisfaction rate were significantly higher in the CAL group compared to the CLT group (SMD: 3.04, 95% CI 2.09-3.99; RR: 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.67). However, no significant difference in complication rates (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.50-1.81) and a lower secondary operation rate in the CAL group (RR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.03-0.82) were observed. No obvious publication bias was observed in the funnel plot (Egger's P values = 0.084 and 0.403).
conclusionsBased on the pooled results, we tentatively conclude that CAL may have superior fat survival rate and satisfaction rate compared to CLT in facial filling, without compromising patient safety. However, the majority of the included studies were observational studies with small sample sizes. Future research should focus on investigating the long-term efficacy and safety of these techniques. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
37794201What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.