Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Objectives: ABSTRACT
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the use of Fat graft enhanced with Stromal Vascular fraction cells (FG-SVFs) in face rejuvenation for esthetic improvement and also for scars.

Introduction: The use of FG-SVFs and also FG not enhanced have been described for many years, without a specific focus on comparison between FG-SVFs and FG in face rejuvenation and outcomes of scars and related soft tissue defects.

Materials / method: Methods: 33 female patients affected by face’s soft-tissue defects with loss of volume, study group (SG), were treated with FG-SVFs, comparing results with a control group (CG) (n = 30) treated with fat graft not enhanced (FG). Clinical evaluation, a photographic assessment, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
and ultrasound (US) were performed. Post-operative follow-up was performed at 1, 3, 7, 12, 24, 48, weeks, and then annually.

Results: Results: Study group patients (treated with FG-SVFs) showed 61% maintenance of the contour restoring and of volume after 3 years compared with the CG treated with FG (not enhanced), who showed 31% maintenance.
60.7% (n = 20) of SG patients, presented an increase of 6.6 mm in the soft tissue volume after 36 months, which was reported in only 33,3% (n = 10) of the CG. Volumetric persistence in the SG was higher than that in the CG (p <. 0001 vs.
CG). MRI and US moreover confirmed the absence of important side effects, as fat necrosis, and cytosteatonecrotic areas.

Conclusion: Conclusions: The use of FG-SVFs was safe and effective in this series of a case treated.

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability