Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsCase Report / SeriesPubMed

A classification of clinical fat grafting: different problems, different solutions.

Del Vecchio D., Rohrich RJ.

Case Report / Series on Face & Skin, published in Plast Reconstr Surg (2012) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • 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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Case Report / Series
Journal
Plast Reconstr Surg (2012)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
22929236
DOI
10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dbf8a
Citations
80

Abstract (original English)

Background Fat grafting has reemerged from a highly variable procedure to a technique with vast reconstructive and cosmetic potential. Largely because of a more disciplined and scientific approach to fat grafting as a transplantation event, early adopters of fat transplantation have begun to approach fat grafting as a process, using sound surgical transplantation principles: recipient preparation, controlled donor harvest, time-efficient transplantation, and proper postoperative care. Despite these principles, different fat grafting techniques yield impressive clinical outcomes. Methods The essential variables of four types of fat grafting cases were identified and compared: harvesting, methods of cell processing, methods of transplantation, and management of the recipient site. Results Each case differed for most of the variables analyzed. The two clinical drivers that most impacted these differences were the volume demands of the recipient site and whether the recipient site was healthy tissue or pathologic tissue. After these two drivers, a matrix classification of small-volume versus large-volume and regenerative versus nonregenerative cases yields four distinct categories. Conclusions Not all fat grafting is the same. Fat grafting, once thought to be a simple technique with variable results, is a much more complex procedure with at least four definable subtypes. By definin

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueAdultFaceFemaleHumansLeg InjuriesMammaplastyMiddle AgedPlastic Surgery ProceduresTissue Transplantation

Browse all related research

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

Related research