ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Nanofat in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes, Safety, and Emerging Applications.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The beauty industry has seen a shift in standards, with patients increasingly favoring natural and subtle enhancements over dramatic cosmetic changes. In this evolving landscape, nanofat has emerged as a promising tool to plastic surgeons due to its regenerative potential and biocompatibility. Despite its growing popularity, hesitancy regarding its efficacy and side effects persists. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in December 2024 following PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Results: A total of 18 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 768 patients. Nine studies (n = 512 patients) assessed patient satisfaction, with most patients reporting above-average satisfaction. Eight studies (n = 188) reported outcomes using the Vancouver Scar Scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, all showing significant improvements in scar characteristics. Additional outcomes included collagen synthesis and transforming growth factor beta 1 expression (n = 68), hair density and thickness (n = 9), and histological analysis of skin samples ( Conclusions: Nanofat demonstrates significant potential as a cost-effective, well-tolerated regenerative therapy in both aesthetic and reconstructive contexts. Although preliminary findings are promising, further high-quality studies are necessary to establish standardized methodologies and optimize preparation techniques.
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.