Nathanael Tendean Witono , Ahmad Fauzi , Kristaninta Bangun
{"title":"Autologous fat grafting auxiliary methods in craniofacial deformities: A systematic review and network meta-analysis","authors":"Nathanael Tendean Witono , Ahmad Fauzi , Kristaninta Bangun","doi":"10.1016/j.bjps.2024.09.060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery","volume":"99 ","pages":"Pages 377-391"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1748681524006144","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
JPRAS An International Journal of Surgical Reconstruction is one of the world''s leading international journals, covering all the reconstructive and aesthetic aspects of plastic surgery.
The journal presents the latest surgical procedures with audit and outcome studies of new and established techniques in plastic surgery including: cleft lip and palate and other heads and neck surgery, hand surgery, lower limb trauma, burns, skin cancer, breast surgery and aesthetic surgery.