ReviewJPRAS open2026
Autologous fat-derived products for skin and scar optimization in rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction: A systematic review.
Review in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction are technically demanding procedures in which optimization of the skin and soft-tissue envelope remains challenging, particularly in revision surgery and in patients with thin or scarred skin. Autologous fat-derived products have emerged as regenerative adjuncts that may improve scar quality, skin texture, and aesthetic outcomes beyond simple volumetric augmentation. Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes of autologous fat-derived product grafting in rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction, focusing on scar quality, skin characteristics, aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, safety, and durability. Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420251087473). A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted from database inception to June 2025. Human clinical studies reporting outcomes of autologous fat-derived products in rhinoplasty or nasal reconstruction were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were performed using predefined criteria. Because of substantial clinical and biological heterogeneity, a structured qualitative (narrative) synthesis informed by Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance was undertaken, with outcomes organised by product class. Results: Twelve studies published between 2007 and 2024, involving 768 patients in aggregate across non-pooled studies, met the inclusion criteria. Interventions included microfat, nanofat, stromal vascular fraction, adipose-derived stromal cells, platelet-rich fibrin-enriched fat, and diced fat composites. Most studies reported improvements in scar appearance, skin quality, and tissue pliability, with favorable aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. Only one study used objective three-dimensional imaging; the remainder relied on subjective assessment. Complications were infrequent and generally minor. Conclusions: Autologous fat-derived products appear to be well tolerated and may be useful adjuncts in rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction, with a consistently low rate of minor, self-limiting complications. However, the available evidence is of low certainty: it is drawn predominantly from small, uncontrolled, subjectively assessed studies that pool biologically distinct fat preparations and is geographically concentrated in East Asian populations. Reported aesthetic benefits should be interpreted with caution. Well-designed comparative studies using standardised processing protocols, blinded three-dimensional outcome assessment, and adequate follow-up are needed before firm clinical recommendations can be made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.