Table 2.
Volume Outcomes
| Author (year) | Outcome assessment | Follow up (months) | Intervention % retention |
Control % retention |
Fold change | Difference in retentionb (intervention compared with control) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRP/PRF | ||||||
| Bernardini et al 2015 | VA of volume | 6 | Good result (63%), excellent result (37%) | — | – | |
| Cervelli et al 2009 | VA of volume | 18 | 65% | 26% | 2.5 | — |
| Fontdevila et al 2014 | CT | 12 | NR | NR | –0.3 mL (−1.1 to –0.5 mL)a (NS) | |
| Gentile et al 2014 | MRI | 12 | 69% | 39% | 1.8 | - |
| Keyhan et al 2013 | Linear measurements of photographs | 12 | 82% (PRP) | 87% (PRF) | ND | 5% ↑ (PRF) (P < 0.05) |
| Sasaki et al 2015 | 3D SI | 12 | 69% [40%] | 38% [13%] | 1.8 | 31% ↑ (P < 0.01) |
| Sasaki et al 2019 | 3D SI | 12 | 24% [10%] | 21% [1%] | 1.1 | 3% ↑ NS |
| Tenna et al | US | 12 | 0.7 cm improvement | 0.6 cm improvement | 1.1 | 0.1 cm ↑ NS |
| Willemsen et al 2018 | VA of nasolabial fold | 12 | NR | NR | ND | NS |
| ASCs | ||||||
| Bashir et al 2019 | US | 6 | 95% [4%] | 31% [13%] | 3.1 | 64% ↑ (P < 0.001) |
| Koh et al 2012 | 3D SI | 6 | 79% | 53% | 1.5 | 26% ↑ (P = 0.002) |
| cSVF | ||||||
| Chang et al 2013 | CT | 6 | 68% [2%] | 59% [1%] | 1.2 | 10% ↑ (P < 0.001) |
| Gentile et al 2014 | MRI | 12 | 63% | 39% | 1.6 | 24% ↑ (P < 0.0001) |
| Lee et al 2012 | NRS (1-10) | 3 | Malar eminence 7 (6-8) Infraorbital region 7 (6-9) Nasolabial fold 8 (7-9)c |
Malar eminence 6 (5-7) Infraorbital region 6 (5-6) Nasolabial fold 6 (5-8)c |
Malar 1.2 Infraorbital 1.2l Nasolabial 1.3 |
Malar eminence 1 ↑ (P = 0.015) Infraorbital region 1 ↑ (P = 0.010) Nasolabial fold 2 ↑ (P = 0.017) |
| Li et al 2013 | CT | 6 | 65% [10%] | 46% [9%] | 1.4 | 18% ↑ (P < 0.01) |
| Sasaki et al 2015 | 3D SI | 12 | 73% [50%] | 38% [13%] | 1.9 | 35% ↑ (P < 0.01) |
| Schendel et al 2015 | 3D SI | 12 | 68% | — | ND | — |
| Tanikawa et al 2013 | CT | 6 | 88% [13%] | 54% [20%] | 1.6 | 34% ↑ (P = 0.002) |
| Yin et al 2020 | 3D SI (handheld) | 6 | 78% [12%] | 56% [10%] | 1.4 | 21% ↑ (P < 0.001) |
| Yoshimura et al 2008 | LS (1-4) | 12 | NR | NR | ND | NS |
| tSVF | ||||||
| Gentile et al 2020 | MRI | 36 | 61% [5%] | 31% [5%] | 2 | 30% ↑ (P < 0.0001) |
| PRP + cSVF | ||||||
| Sasaki et al 2015 | 3D SI | 12 | 70% [35%] | 38% [13%] | 1.8 | 31% ↑ (P < 0.01) |
Where indicated, values are mean [standard deviation] or (range). —, no test was performed, or no quantification was described; NR, not reported; NS, not significant. Outcome assessment: NRS, numeric rating scale; US, ultrasound; CT, computed tomography; LS, Likert scale; VA, visual assessment; SI, surface imaging. Supplements: PRP, platelet-rich plasma; PRF, platelet-rich fibrin; cSVF, cellular stromal vascular fraction; tSVF, tissue stromal vascular fraction; ASC, adipose-derived stromal cell; BMSC, bone marrow–derived stromal cell.
aFontdevila et al described no separate intervention or control volume. Only a difference between groups with a range was described.
bDifference is described in absolute percentage points; however, for the readibility of this table we have used the percentage sign %. Differences are based on the original (not rounded) data, which means rounding errors can be present.
cLee et al described surgeon-rated volume consistency based on a numeric rating scale.
dGu et al described the thickness using the POSAS questionnaire. The specific question about thickness is extracted.