ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2026
Adipose-Derived Stem Cell-Enhanced versus Conventional Fat Grafting for Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety profile of autologous adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction in clinical use: an exhaustive literature review.Stem cell research & therapy · 2026Review
- Advancing fat graft survival: from adipose-derived stem cell mechanisms to next-generation regenerative strategies.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdipose-derived stem cell (ADSC)-enhanced fat grafting may improve graft retention and aesthetic outcomes in breast reconstruction, but its safety and efficacy remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared ADSC-enhanced with conventional fat grafting using rigorous methodology and predefined subgroup analyses.
methodsThe authors searched 6 databases for comparative studies published from January of 2000 through November of 2024. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to assess outcomes, with subgroups defined by ADSC preparation method, follow-up duration, and reconstruction indication.
resultsThirty-one studies (1426 patients: 634 ADSC-enhanced, 792 conventional) met inclusion criteria. ADSC-enhanced grafting significantly improved fat retention (mean difference [MD], 26.8% [95% CI, 18.2 to 35.5]; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence). Ex vivo-expanded ADSCs achieved the greatest improvement (MD, 64.6% [95% CI, 60.5 to 68.7]); stromal vascular fraction methods provided moderate gains (MD, 17.0% [95% CI, 8.6 to 25.4]; P < 0.001; I² = 78%). Complication rates were similar between groups (18.4% versus 17.2%; risk ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.77]; P = 0.78). Among 813 patients with previous breast cancer, recurrence rates did not differ significantly (5.3% versus 3.4%; risk ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 0.10 to 24.3]; P = 0.75). Patient-reported and aesthetic outcomes generally favored ADSC-enhanced grafting.
conclusionsADSC-enhanced fat grafting increases graft retention without raising complication or recurrence risk. Ex vivo-expanded ADSCs offer the greatest benefit, with stromal vascular fraction yielding moderate improvement. Standardized protocols and long-term safety data are needed to optimize clinical use.
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.