TY - JOUR
T1 - Autologous fat grafting auxiliary methods in craniofacial deformities
T2 - A systematic review and network meta-analysis
AU - Witono, Nathanael Tendean
AU - Fauzi, Ahmad
AU - Bangun, Kristaninta
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons
PY - 2024/12
Y1 - 2024/12
N2 - Background: To increase autologous fat grafting (AFG) volume retention, current advancements focus on adding an auxiliary method to the process. This review aimed to address which auxiliary methods prove to be the best in terms of volume retention outcome. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in five medical databases, including PubMed, Proquest, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ScienceDirect, until March 2024, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Twenty-six studies were included in this review, and seven studies were included in the network meta-analysis. Reported auxiliary methods include stromal vascular fractions (SVFs) [12.20, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.04 to 24.35], adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ADSCs) (24.20, 95% CI 4.14 to 44.26), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) [24.10, 95% CI −2.68 to 50.88]. When compared with the standard AFG approach, SVFs (p = 0.049) and ADSCs (p = 0.018) were more successful in retaining volume. However, PRP (p = 0.077) was not as effective. The comparison between auxiliary approaches, ADSCs vs PRP (p = 0.994), ADSCs vs SVFs (p = 0.271), and PRP vs SVF (p = 0.383), did not show any significant differences. Subgroup analysis revealed that the use of volumetric measuring methods has a substantial impact on the reported volume retention (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Enhanced volume retention can be attained with the utilization of SVF and ADSCs auxiliary methods in comparison to AFG, with or without PRP. Given the insignificant differences between SVF and ADSC, along with the greater complexity of the ADSC process, we recommend for the preferable use of SVF.
AB - Background: To increase autologous fat grafting (AFG) volume retention, current advancements focus on adding an auxiliary method to the process. This review aimed to address which auxiliary methods prove to be the best in terms of volume retention outcome. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in five medical databases, including PubMed, Proquest, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ScienceDirect, until March 2024, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Twenty-six studies were included in this review, and seven studies were included in the network meta-analysis. Reported auxiliary methods include stromal vascular fractions (SVFs) [12.20, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.04 to 24.35], adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ADSCs) (24.20, 95% CI 4.14 to 44.26), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) [24.10, 95% CI −2.68 to 50.88]. When compared with the standard AFG approach, SVFs (p = 0.049) and ADSCs (p = 0.018) were more successful in retaining volume. However, PRP (p = 0.077) was not as effective. The comparison between auxiliary approaches, ADSCs vs PRP (p = 0.994), ADSCs vs SVFs (p = 0.271), and PRP vs SVF (p = 0.383), did not show any significant differences. Subgroup analysis revealed that the use of volumetric measuring methods has a substantial impact on the reported volume retention (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Enhanced volume retention can be attained with the utilization of SVF and ADSCs auxiliary methods in comparison to AFG, with or without PRP. Given the insignificant differences between SVF and ADSC, along with the greater complexity of the ADSC process, we recommend for the preferable use of SVF.
KW - Adipose tissue-derived stem cells
KW - Autologous fat grafting
KW - Craniofacial deformities
KW - Platelet-rich plasma
KW - Stromal vascular fractions
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85206680270&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.09.060
DO - 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.09.060
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85206680270
SN - 1748-6815
VL - 99
SP - 377
EP - 391
JO - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
JF - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
ER -