Achieving optimal clinical outcomes in autologous fat grafting: A systematic review of processing techniques.

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Background Autologous fat grafting (AFG) is a versatile technique in reconstructive and cosmetic surgery. Graft processing is a key source of variability resulting in unreliable clinical outcomes, with no consensus on the optimal methodology. This systematic review identifies the evidence base supporting different processing paradigms. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus and The Cochrane Foundation databases. Studies comparing AFG processing methods and reporting long-term patient outcomes were identified. Results Twenty-four studies (2413 patients) were identified. Processing techniques evaluated included centrifugation, decantation, washing, filtration, gauze rolling, as well as commercial devices and adipose-derived stem/stromal cell (ASC) enrichment methods. Objective volumetric and subjective patient-reported outcomes were discussed. There was a variable reporting of complications and volume retention rates. Complications were infrequent; palpable cysts (0-20%), surgical-site infections (0-8%) and fat necrosis (0-58.4%) were the most reported. No significant differences in long-term volume retention between techniques were found in AFG in the breast. In head and neck patients, greater volume retention was documented in ASC enrichment (64.8-95%) and commercial devices (41.2%) compared to centrifugation (31.8-76%). Conclusions Graft

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.