SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Autologous Fat Injection for Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review of Satisfaction, Reinjection and Fat Retention.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutologous fat injection has been proposed as a potential alternative to traditional rhinoplasty. However, the technique has been criticized for its disappointing retention and the potential complications associated with underfilling.
objectiveTo summarize data on patient satisfaction, retention, complications and reinjection to provide a reference for fat injection for rhinoplasty.
methodsLiterature search was conducted on four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library) using the keywords "rhinoplasty", "nasal tip", "nasal augmentation", "augmentation rhinoplasty", "revisional rhinoplasty" and "nasal revision" in conjunction with "fat", "lipofilling", "lipoinjection" and "adipose graft". Under eligibility criteria, two reviewers conducted an examination of each potential study.
resultEleven studies with a total of 849 patients were included in the systematic review and all patients received at least one fat injection. In nine studies that evaluated patient satisfaction, a total of 820 patients exhibited an high satisfaction ranging from 63 to 100% (approximately 81.2%). Complications associated with fat injection are uncommon, with edema and bruising being the most frequently reported. Three studies measured fat retention, which were < 50% (at 6 months after injection), 44.54% (range 21-74%) (at 3 months after injection) and 50.5% ± 7.0% (at 6 months after injection). A minimum of 18.61% (158) of the 849 patients enrolled underwent one or more injections. At 1-year follow-up, the reinjection rate is at least 19.27%.
conclusionAutologous fat injection is safe and effective for rhinoplasty. The resorbability of fat requires additional injections in certain noses where deformities are evident. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
39751904What 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.