对比

Stem Cell Fat Grafting vs SVF-assisted Fat Grafting

以下事实均来自两个条目页面及其出处。先对比双方都有记录的项，其余并排展示。

Stem Cell Fat GraftingA consumer and marketing term used for fat grafting that is enriched with cells isolated from adipose tissue. It is not a standardised academic term and does not denote culture-expanded stem cell therapy.更新 2026年9月21日

医疗

SVF-assisted Fat GraftingSVF-assisted fat grafting (a form of cell-assisted lipotransfer) enriches the fat graft with stromal vascular fraction isolated from part of the harvested fat, with the aim of improving graft survival.更新 2026年9月21日

两者的关系Stem Cell Fat Grafting — 通常所指的术式 → SVF-assisted Fat Grafting

共同项

双方均有记录 0 项

这两项目前还没有共同记录的条目。各自已核实的事实见下方。

各自的事实

仅在其中一方有记录的已核实事实。

Stem Cell Fat Grafting

尚无核实数据

SVF-assisted Fat Grafting

First clinical descriptionYoshimura K et al., 'Cell-assisted lipotransfer for cosmetic breast augmentation', Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008;32(1):48–55; 40 women, maximum follow-up 42 months

Original procedureAbout half of the aspirated fat is processed to isolate fresh SVF, which is recombined with the other half before injection; the fat acts as a living scaffold

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%

Efficacy by siteFace showed a significant benefit (SMD 2.95); breast reconstruction showed no significant advantage (SMD 0.47); no benefit with water-assisted lipotransfer harvesting

Methodological qualityAbout 62% of included studies rated weak overall; mean follow-up 16.2 months, too short for oncologic conclusions

Comparative study without benefitPeltoniemi et al. 2013 (JPRAS 66:1494–1503): 18 women, MRI at 6 months; graft survival 50% with Celution SVF enrichment vs 54% without, difference not significant

Breast-surgery evidence base11 studies, 336 patients, follow-up 6–42 months; 8 of 11 studies had no control group; only one used a validated patient-reported outcome measure (BREAST-Q)

Reported complications (breast)Calcifications were the most frequently reported complication; none reported as malignant

Preclinical and early clinical findings16 of 18 preclinical studies showed significantly improved retention (1.19- to 4.14-fold); 6 of 7 clinical studies favored CAL; evidence judged low quality

Applicable US FDA guidanceFinal guidance 'Regulatory Considerations for HCT/Ps: Minimal Manipulation and Homologous Use', July 2020 (supersedes November 2017 version)

Enzymatic SVF isolation (US)Collagenase digestion to isolate SVF falls outside 'minimal manipulation'; non-enzymatic mechanical point-of-care methods are proposed as possible alternatives

Also calledCell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL)

EvidenceA 2024 systematic review assessed the efficacy of cell-assisted lipotransfer; a 2021 study compared CAL with PRP-assisted lipotransfer

Proposed mechanismStromal cells may support angiogenesis and graft survival (hypothesis under study)