Stem Cell Enriched Fat Grafts versus Autologous Fat Grafts in Reconstructive Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

[OBJECTIVE] To compare the outcomes of stem cell-enrichment fat grafting (SCEFG) versus autologous fat grafting (AFG) for reconstructive purposes.

[METHODS] A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed as per the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Guidelines and a search of electronic information was conducted to identify all Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), case-control studies and cohort studies comparing the outcomes of SCEFG versus AFG. Volume retention, fat necrosis, cancer recurrence, redness and swelling, infection, and cysts were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included patient satisfaction post-surgery, scar assessment, operation time and number of fat grafting sessions. Fixed and random effects modelling were used for the analysis.

[RESULTS] 16 studies enrolling 686 subjects were selected. Significant differences between the SCEFG and AFG groups were seen in mean volume retention (standardised mean difference = 3.00, P < 0.0001) and the incidence of redness and swelling (Odds Ratio [OR] = 441, P = 0.003). No significant difference between the two groups in terms of fat necrosis (OR = 2.23, P = 0.26), cancer recurrence (OR = 1.39, P = 0.58), infection (OR = 0.30, P = 0.48) and cysts (OR = 0.88, P = 0.91). For secondary outcomes, both cohorts had similar results in patient satisfaction, scar assessment and number of fat grafting sessions. Operation time was longer for the intervention group.

[CONCLUSIONS] SCEFG offers better outcomes when compared to AFG for reconstructive surgery as it improves the mean volume retention and does not worsen patient satisfaction and surgical complications except for self-limiting redness and swelling. Further clinical trials are recommended to support this argument and validate the use of SCEFG in clinical practice.

[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .