journal
Evidence pageClinical Efficacy of Adipose-Derived Stem Cell-Enriched Lipotransfer Versus Conventional Fat Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Cureus, via PubMed Central
accessed Sep 18, 2026Updated Sep 19, 2026
Original source
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13090857/
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Verification
| Verification | Not yet verified |
| Evidence level | — |
| Source | journal |
| Link status | Reachable at last check |
Official claims are statements by the provider; they are not verified by worldwiki unless marked otherwise. Source policy
Cited by (5)
FactAngiogenesis: Evidence in cell-assisted fat grafting = Meta-analysis of 15 studies (634 patients): cell-enriched grafts had higher retention, but results varied extremely between studies (I² = 97%) and breast grafts showed no significant benefitFactAngiogenesis: Evidence for the angiogenesis mechanism in grafts = Histology did not show higher vessel density in enriched grafts; the authors suggest the benefit may come from signalling molecules released by the cells (a paracrine effect)FactSVF-assisted Fat Grafting: Pooled fat survival (2026 meta-analysis) = 72.78% with enrichment vs 45.28% conventional (SMD 2.44; 95% CI 1.00–3.88); 15 studies, 634 patients; heterogeneity I² = 97.19% %FactSVF-assisted Fat Grafting: Efficacy by site = Face showed a significant benefit (SMD 2.95); breast reconstruction showed no significant advantage (SMD 0.47); no benefit with water-assisted lipotransfer harvestingFactSVF-assisted Fat Grafting: Methodological quality = About 62% of included studies rated weak overall; mean follow-up 16.2 months, too short for oncologic conclusions