Efficacy and safety of stromal vascular fraction on scar revision surgery: a prospective study

Figures & data

Figure 1. (A) Preoperative design for tumescent injection and fat harvesting. (B) The serum is removed from the centrifuged fat, (C) creating the desired quantity (approximately 2 cc) of the stromal vascular fraction.

Table 1. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Observer Scar Assessment Scale (1: normal skin, 10: worst scar imaginable)
Vascularity
Pigmentation
Thickness
Relief
Pliability
Surface area
Total score
Patient Scar Assessment Scale (1: normal skin, 10: worst scar imaginable)
Pain
Itching
Color
Stiffness
Thickness
Pliability
Total score

The POSAS scale consists of two scales; each scar is evaluated from 1 to 10 points on six items.

Table 2. Patient demographics.

Characteristics	Value (n = 16)
Age (yrs)	35.62 ± 13.19
Sex
Male	6 (37.5)
Female	10 (62.5)
Height (cm)	166.68 ± 6.42
Weight (kg)	63.32 ± 11.76
BMI (kg/m^2)	22.68 ± 3.19
Location
Face	5 (31.25)
Upper limb	2 (12.5)
Lower limb	3 (18.75)
Trunk	6 (37.5)
Etiology
Trauma	3 (18.75)
Operation	4 (25)
Operation after trauma	9 (56.25)

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (%). BMI, body mass index.

Figure 2. Bar plots with error bars indicating the Observer Scar Assessment Scale.

Figure 3. Bar plot with error bars showing the Patient Scar Assessment Scale.

Figure 4. (A) A scar that occurred after trauma to the leg 6 years prior. (B) Immediate postoperative image. The yellow section is the control side and the red section is the experimental treatment side. (C) Six months postoperatively. The scar appears less visible on the experimental treatment side than on the control side.

Figure 5. (A) Hypertrophic scar after Cesarean surgery 2 years prior. (B) Immediate postoperative image. The yellow section is the control side and the red section is the experimental treatment side. (C) Six months postoperatively. The scar appears less visible on the experimental treatment side than on the control side.

Table 3. Results of the POSAS scale comparing pre-and 6-months post-surgery.

Variables	Group	Pretest (preop) M ± SD	Posttest (6 months) M ± SD	t	p-value
OSAS	Exp. (n = 16)	39.75 ± 7.06	15.88 ± 2.58	–5.56	<.001
	cont. (n = 16)		22.75 ± 4.22
Vascularity	Exp. (n = 16)	6.88 ± 0.89	2.63 ± 0.72	–5.14	<.001
	cont. (n = 16)		4.19 ± 0.98
Pigmentation	Exp. (n = 16)	7.06 ± 1.24	2.81 ± 0.66	–5.05	<.001
	cont. (n = 16)		4.25 ± 0.93
Thickness	Exp. (n = 16)	7.06 ± 1.48	2.69 ± 0.70	–4.20	<.001
	cont. (n = 16)		3.88 ± 0.89
Relief	Exp. (n = 16)	6.50 ± 1.86	2.63 ± 0.62	–2.91	.008
	cont. (n = 16)		3.50 ± 1.03
Pliability	Exp. (n = 16)	6.19 ± 1.72	2.69 ± 0.70	–3.20	.003
	cont. (n = 16)		3.50 ± 0.73
Surface area	Exp. (n = 16)	6.06 ± 1.69	2.44 ± 0.63	–3.89	.001
	cont. (n = 16)		3.44 ± 0.81
PSAS	Exp. (n = 16)	32.19 ± 7.08	13.13 ± 2.70	–5.11	<.001
	cont. (n = 16)		18.56 ± 3.29
Pain	Exp. (n = 16)	3.69 ± 1.85	1.44 ± 0.63	–2.53	.017
	cont. (n = 16)		2.13 ± 0.89
Itching	Exp. (n = 16)	4.50 ± 1.67	2.38 ± 0.50	–2.44	.023
	cont. (n = 16)		3.00 ± 0.89
color	Exp. (n = 16)	6.44 ± 1.50	2.31 ± 0.70	–4.19	<.001
	cont. (n = 16)		3.56 ± 0.96
Stiffness	Exp. (n = 16)	5.88 ± 1.78	2.44 ± 0.73	–3.89	.001
	cont. (n = 16)		3.50 ± 0.82
Thickness	Exp. (n = 16)	6.50 ± 1.59	2.13 ± 0.81	–3.45	.002
	cont. (n = 16)		3.38 ± 1.20
Pliability	Exp. (n = 16)	5.19 ± 1.72	2.44 ± 0.81	–1.78	.085
	cont. (n = 16)		3.00 ± 0.97

POSAS: patient observer scar assessment scale; OSAS: observer scar assessment scale; PSAS: patient scar assessment scale; M: mean; SD: standard deviation; Exp.: experimental group; cont.: Control group.

Data availability statement

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research, supporting data is not available.