ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Currently, cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) -assisted lipotransfer have been used to overcome the low survival rate of conventional lipotransfer. However, there is still insufficient evidence to determine which technique is the best strategy for autologous fat grafting in breast cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of traditional fat transplantation, CAL, and PRP-assisted lipotransfer. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in several databases including PUBMED, Web of Science, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE from January 21, 2024, to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were included after a rigorous selection process based on predefined criteria. Statistical analyses were conducted using R Ver. 4.0.5 with the netmeta and dmetar packages, employing a frequentist approach with a random-effects model. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare different fat graft procedures regarding fat survival rate and complication events. The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024501780). RESULTS: The results indicate that CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer are better than traditional fat grafts in terms of fat survival rate. And there is no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the CAL group, PRP group, and traditional group. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of network meta-analysis, it appears that both CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer have a higher fat survival rate for autologous fat grafting in breast augmentation and reconstruction. However, the transplantation strategy still needs to be analyzed based on actual conditions in clinical applications.
