The Efficacy of Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer Versus Conventional Lipotransfer in Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) is novel and controversial technique for breast augmentation.

Objective: This review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of CAL as compared with conventional lipotransfer.

Methods: PubMed databases were searched with no restrictions for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with control groups. Keywords included "fat graft," "lipotransfer," "lipofilling," "autologous fat," "fat transplantation," "stromal vascular fraction (SVF)," "stem cell," "adipose tissue-derived stromal cell (ADSC)," "adipose tissue-derived stromal cell (ASC)," "called adipose derived progenitor cells (ADRC)," "cell-assisted," "progenitor-enriched," "cell-enhanced" and "breast." Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.3) was used to compute the pooled effect estimates for fat survival rate and complication rates. Outcomes were expressed as standard mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed based on different methods of cell-enhanced fat preparation.

Results: Six studies were included (n_total = 353 adult patients). The fat survival rate was significantly higher in the CAL group than in the control group (SMD = 1.79, 95% CI = 0.28, 3.31; P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in complication rates between the CAL group and the control group (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.65, 2.73; P = 0.43). Subgroup analyses found no significant differences between the SVF and control groups in fat survival rate (SMD = 1.52, 95% CI = -0.21, 3.24; P = 0.08) among both manual and automatic subgroups (P = 0.28 and P = 0.10, respectively). The data analysis showed a significant heterogeneity between manual and automatic subgroups (I² = 57.0%, P = 0.15).

Conclusion: This study suggests that cell-assisted lipotransfer is superior to conventional lipotransfer for improved fat survival rate in breast augmentation. However, analyses comparing the SVF-enhanced fat graft with the conventional fat graft noted no differences in fat survival rate. It is necessary to determine which protocol is most beneficial for patients, establish standardized methods of SVF isolation or adipose tissue-derived stromal cells (ADSCs) culture, and a constant percentage of injected cells in the graft. The long-term efficacy and safety of CAL should also be evaluated in further studies, and additional RCTs with larger sample sizes and better comparability are needed.

Level of evidence iv: 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.

Keywords: Autologous fat; Breast; Cell-assisted; Complication; Fat survival rate; Lipotransfer; Meta-analysis.