Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer and Platelet-Rich Plasma Assisted Lipotransfer: What Should We Expect from a Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis?

Due to the high absorption rate of traditional autologous fat grafting, cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-assisted lipotransfer were developed. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CAL and PRP in promoting the survival of autologous fat grafting through systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE for clinical studies on CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer published from January 2010 to January 2020. Then a meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy of CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer through data analysis of fat survival rate. We also assessed the incidence of complications and multiple operations to analyze their safety. A total of 36 studies (1697 patients) were included in this review. Regardless of the recipient area, CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer significantly improved the fat survival rate (CAL vs non-CAL: 71% vs 48%, P < 0.0001; PRP vs non-PRP: 70% vs 40%, P < 0.0001; CAL vs PRP: 71% vs 70%, P = 0.7175). However, in large-volume fat grafting, such as breast reconstruction, both increased the incidence of complications and did not decrease the frequency of multiple operations after lipotransfer. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the clinical benefits of CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer.

Automated summary

Cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-assisted lipotransfer significantly improve fat survival rate, but may increase complications and frequency of multiple operations in large-volume fat grafting. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate their clinical benefits.