Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialPubMed

Comparison of harvest and processing techniques for fat grafting and adipose stem cell isolation.

Fisher C., Grahovac TL., Schafer ME., Shippert RD., Marra KG., Rubin JP.

Clinical Trial on Skin Aging, published in Plast Reconstr Surg (2013) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • 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
Clinical Trial
Journal
Plast Reconstr Surg (2013)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
23584621
DOI
10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182958796
Citations
111

Abstract (original English)

Background Variability in harvest and processing technique may impact the success of fat grafting. This study compared properties of fat grafts produced by differing methods and assessed volume retention of the grafted tissue in a nude mouse model. Methods In phase I, fat was harvested by either suction-assisted lipoaspiration or ultrasound-assisted lipoaspiration and then filtered using two different pore sizes. Graft material was analyzed for average parcel size; relative oil, fat, and aqueous fractions; and stromal vascular fraction yield. Filtrands and filtrates were injected into athymic nude mice. In phase II, lipoaspirate harvested by suction-assisted lipoaspiration only was processed by centrifugation, cotton gauze rolling, or filtration, and then studied in a similar manner. Results Fat harvested by ultrasound- and suction-assisted lipoaspiration had comparable stromal vascular fraction counts and graft retention in vivo. Ultrasound-assisted lipoaspiration released only slightly more oil than suction-assisted lipoaspiration; filtering with either 500- or 800-µm pore size effectively removed fluid and oil. Centrifugation, cotton-gauze rolling, and filtration also effectively removed fluid and oil. In vivo graft retention and stromal vascular fraction yield was highest with the cotton gauze method. Histologic analysis of all explants showed intact adipose tissue. Conclus

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence
AdipocytesAdipose TissueAdultAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsCell SeparationCentrifugationDisease Models, AnimalEstheticsFemale

Browse all related research

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

Related research