Department of Plastic Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Na Bulovce Hospital, Budinova 67/2, 180 81, Prague 8-Liben, Czech Republic.
Department of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, Institute of Physiology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Videnska 1083, 142 20, Prague 4-Krc, Czech Republic.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021 Oct;45(5):2379-2394. doi: 10.1007/s00266-021-02249-9. Epub 2021 Apr 19.
An understanding of fat grafting methodology, techniques and patient-related factors is crucial when considering fat grafting. Multiple factors can influence the success of a fat graft and consequently the outcome of the procedure. The aim of this systematic review is to elucidate the influence of negative pressure and various techniques of fat harvesting on the viability and function of cells, particularly adipocytes and adipose-derived stem cells.
We conducted a literature search from 1975 to 2020 using the PubMed bibliography, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS and the Google Scholar databases which produced 168,628 articles on the first pass. After applying all the exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers, we were left with 21 articles (level IV of Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Studies and Grade C of Grade Practice Recommendation from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons) on which this review is based.
From 11 studies focused on different negative pressures, no one found using high negative pressure advantageous. Summarising 13 studies focused on various harvesting techniques (excision, syringe, and pump-machine), most often equal results were reported, followed by excision being better than either syringe or liposuction.
From our systematic review, we can conclude that the low negative pressure seems to yield better results and that the excision seems to be the most sparing method for fat graft harvesting. However, we have to point out that this conclusion is based on a very limited number of statistically challengeable articles and we recommend well-conducted further research.
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 .
在考虑脂肪移植时,了解脂肪移植的方法、技术和与患者相关的因素至关重要。多个因素可能会影响脂肪移植的成功率,进而影响手术的结果。本系统评价的目的是阐明负压和各种脂肪采集技术对细胞(尤其是脂肪细胞和脂肪来源的干细胞)活力和功能的影响。
我们使用 PubMed 书目、ScienceDirect、SCOPUS 和 Google Scholar 数据库进行了 1975 年至 2020 年的文献检索,第一次检索产生了 168628 篇文章。经过两位独立评审员应用所有排除标准后,我们留下了 21 篇文章(牛津循证医学中心的四级和美国整形外科学会的 C 级)作为本综述的依据。
从 11 项关注不同负压的研究中,没有人发现使用高负压有优势。总结了 13 项关注各种采集技术(切除、注射器和泵机)的研究,大多数情况下报告了相同的结果,随后切除比注射器或吸脂术更好。
从我们的系统评价中,我们可以得出结论,低负压似乎产生了更好的结果,并且切除似乎是脂肪采集最节约的方法。然而,我们必须指出,这一结论基于非常有限数量的具有统计学挑战性的文章,我们建议进行进一步的良好研究。
证据水平 III:本杂志要求作者为每篇文章指定一个证据水平。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参考目录或在线作者指南 www.springer.com/00266 。