Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is a letter to the editor about a meta-analysis titled “The efficacy of cell-assisted lipotransfer versus conventional lipotransfer in breast augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by Li and Chen published in the year 2021. The most frequently performed aesthetic procedure is breast augmentation surgery. In breast augmentation, cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) has received high recognition due to its positive outcomes. There are controversies in the medical literature on the use of CAL for breast augmentation. This meta-analysis by Li and Chen has concluded that CAL using ASC was superior to other methods as it improved fat survival rate in breast augmentation. We have written this letter to the editor of the Aesthetic Plastic Surgery journal about this meta-analysis because of its impactful information provided by this study to the medical literature for breast augmentation surgery using cell-assisted lipotransfer.

Level of Evidence V 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery ISAPS (2019) International survey on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed. https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ISAPS-Global-Survey-2019-Press-Release-English.pdf

  2. Li M, Chen C (2021) The efficacy of cell-assisted lipotransfer versus conventional lipotransfer in breast augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesth Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-02123-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vyas KS, Vasconez HC, Morrison S et al (2020) Fat graft enrichment strategies: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 145(3):827–841. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yoshimura K, Sato K, Aoi N et al (2020) Cell-assisted lipotransfer for cosmetic breast augmentation: supportive use of adipose-derived stem/stromal cells. Aesth Plast Surg 44:1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01819-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lutfi D, Turkof E (2020) Adipose-derived stem cell enrichment is counter-productive for the majority of women seeking primary aesthetic breast augmentation by autologous fat transfer: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 73(11):2025–2032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2020.08.057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amudhan Kannan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dominic, J.L., Kannan, A., Ahmed, A. et al. Letter to the Editor: The Efficacy of Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer Versus Conventional Lipotransfer in Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aesth Plast Surg 46 (Suppl 1), 94–95 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02452-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02452-8

Navigation