ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2024
Improvement in Early Scar Maturation by Nanofat Infiltration: Histological and Spectrophotometric Preliminary Results From a Split Scar-Controlled, Randomized, Double-Blinded Clinical Trial.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Nanofat in Wound Healing: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Trial
- Cryopreservation of adipose tissue for nanofat production: biological principles, workflow standardisation, and regulated biobanking.Cell and tissue banking · 2026Review
- The Effectiveness of Nanofat in the Management of Skin Scars: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The regenerative properties of stromal vascular fraction (SVF) in wound healing and scar formation are a subject of increasing clinical interest. Objectives: Although preclinical studies have confirmed the angiogenetic, proliferative, and antifibrotic properties of SVF, there is limited clinical evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials. Methods: Twelve patients who underwent abdominoplasty were included in this clinical study. Nanofat was mechanically obtained intraoperatively and infiltrated intradermally in the sutured surgical wound, randomly assigned to either the left or the right side. The abdominal scar was evaluated with the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, whereas erythema and pigmentation were measured with a reflectance spectrophotometry device (Mexameter, Courage + Khazaka electronic GmbH, Köln,Germany). Histological analysis and electron scan microscopy of tissue biopsies were performed at 8 months. Results: The treated side of the scar showed significantly less erythema at 3- and 6-month follow-ups, but this difference reduced after 12 months. Patients reported better scar scores at the 6-month follow-up with a significantly better color at the treated side. Observers reported better overall scar scores at the treated side at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, with better vascularization, pigmentation, and thickness. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of histological analysis between the 2 groups. There was no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between both sides. Conclusions: Infiltration of nanofat exhibited promising results in surgical scar maturation characterized by less erythema and better texture. More clinical trials with a larger sample size are warranted to better elucidate the possible benefits of SVF on surgical scar formation. Level of Evidence 5:
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.