↓ Skip to main content

Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer: A Systematic Review of Its Efficacy

Overview of attention for article published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer: A Systematic Review of Its Efficacy
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00266-016-0613-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Navid Mohamadpour Toyserkani, Marlene Louise Quaade, Jens Ahm Sørensen

Abstract

Autologous lipotransfer is seen as an ideal filler for soft tissue reconstruction. The main limitation of this procedure is the unpredictable resorption and volume loss of the fat graft. In the recent decade, an increasing amount of research has focused on the use of adipose tissue-derived stromal cells (ASCs) to enrich the fat graft, a procedure termed cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL). The aim of this review was to systematically review the current preclinical and clinical evidence for the efficacy of CAL compared with conventional lipotransfer. A systematic search was performed on PubMed and other databases to identify all preclinical and clinical studies where CAL with ASCs was compared with conventional lipotransfer. A total of 20 preclinical studies and seven clinical studies were included in the review. The preclinical studies consisted of 15 studies using immunodeficient animal models and five studies using immunocompetent studies. Seventeen studies examined weight/volume retention of which 15 studies favored CAL over conventional lipotransfer. One clinical study did not find any efficacy of CAL and the remaining six studies favored CAL. The present evidence suggests that there is a big potential for CAL in reconstructive surgery; however, the present studies are so far still of low quality with inherent weaknesses. Several aspects regarding CAL still remain unknown such as the optimal degree of cell enrichment and also its safety. Further high-quality studies are needed to establish if CAL can live up to its potential. 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 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Postgraduate 13 16%
Other 5 6%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2022.
All research outputs
#7,051,573
of 23,073,835 outputs
Outputs from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#259
of 1,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,864
of 298,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,073,835 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,234 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.