Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Cell-Assisted and Conventional Lipotransfer in Facial Filling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) and conventional lipotransfer (CLT) in facial filling. METHODS: The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications until February 2023. All studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of cell-assisted and conventional lipotransfer in facial filling were included. We calculated pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes and pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs for binary outcomes. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the quality of studies. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies with 737 patients were included in this analysis. The fat survival rate and patient satisfaction rate were significantly higher in the CAL group compared to the CLT group (SMD: 3.04, 95% CI 2.09-3.99; RR: 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.67). However, no significant difference in complication rates (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.50-1.81) and a lower secondary operation rate in the CAL group (RR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.03-0.82) were observed. No obvious publication bias was observed in the funnel plot (Egger's P values = 0.084 and 0.403). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the pooled results, we tentatively conclude that CAL may have superior fat survival rate and satisfaction rate compared to CLT in facial filling, without compromising patient safety. However, the majority of the included studies were observational studies with small sample sizes. Future research should focus on investigating the long-term efficacy and safety of these techniques. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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 .