Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Feb 15;39(3):331-337.
doi: 10.1093/asj/sjy154.

A Prospective Pilot Study Comparing Rate of Processing Techniques in Autologous Fat Grafting

Summer E Hanson  1 , Patrick B Garvey  1 , Edward I Chang  1 , Gregory Reece  1 , Jun Liu  1 , Charles E Butler  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

A Prospective Pilot Study Comparing Rate of Processing Techniques in Autologous Fat Grafting

Summer E Hanson et al. Aesthet Surg J. .

Abstract

Background: Autologous fat grafting (AFG) is increasing in popularity to address a variety of defects. There is interest in developing techniques to harvest, process, and inject fat to improve clinical outcomes as well as operative efficiency.

Objectives: The purpose of this pilot study is to compare the rate of graft processing of two commercially available systems for graft preparation.

Methods: Twenty consecutive cases using an active filtration system (system-AF) were observed followed by 20 consecutive cases using a passive filtration system (system-PF) to compare efficiency rate. Fat processing rate was quantified in milliliters/minute.

Results: Forty patients underwent AFG with no differences in patient characteristics between the groups. There was 1 incidence of palpable fat necrosis per group (5%). For all patients, this was the first fat grafting procedure; 20% of patients (n = 4 per group) had additional fat grafting. Overall, the rate of adipose tissue preparation was significantly higher with system-AF compared to system-PF (19.8 mL/min vs 5.3 mL/min, P ≤ 0.001). The resulting percent of graftable fat was comparable (AF: 41% vs PF: 42%; P = 0.83).

Conclusions: Time and motion studies such as this provide a means to systematically document each of the steps involved in fat grafting in a reliable fashion. The authors demonstrate a significantly higher rate of lipoaspirate processing using an active filtration system compared to a passive system. Further large-scale studies of the efficacy and cost analysis of AFG are a necessary component of determining best practices in the field.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Gir P, Brown SA, Oni G, Kashefi N, Mojallal A, Rohrich RJ. Fat grafting: evidence-based review on autologous fat harvesting, processing, reinjection, and storage. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(1):249-258. - PubMed
    1. Cleveland EC, Albano NJ, Hazen A. Roll, spin, wash, or filter? Processing of lipoaspirate for autologous fat grafting: an updated, evidence-based review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(4):706-713. - PubMed
    1. Strong AL, Cederna PS, Rubin JP, Coleman SR, Levi B. The current state of fat grafting: a review of harvesting, processing, and injection techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(4):897-912. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Condé-Green A, Wu I, Graham I, et al. . Comparison of 3 techniques of fat grafting and cell-supplemented lipotransfer in athymic rats: a pilot study. Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33(5):713-721. - PubMed
    1. Gutowski KA; ASPS Fat Graft Task Force . Current applications and safety of autologous fat grafts: a report of the ASPS fat graft task force. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(1):272-280. - PubMed

Publication types