Cool Fat, Hot Topic: A Systematic Review on Cryopreservation of Adipose Tissue.
Bonomi F., Limido E., Weinzierl A., Harder Y., Menger MD., Ampofo E.
Systematic Review, published in Tissue Eng Part B Rev (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Tissue Eng Part B Rev (2026)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- PMID
- 40227847
- DOI
- 10.1089/ten.teb.2024.0360
Abstract (original English)
Autologous fat grafting is increasingly used in plastic, reconstructive, and esthetic surgery. Cryopreservation offers a promising solution for the long-term storage of adipose tissue, enabling multiple grafting sessions while minimizing patient discomfort associated with repeated liposuction for fat harvesting. This systematic review aims to analyze the current literature focusing on factors that influence the outcome of cryopreservation, including the use of cryoprotectants, the cooling and warming rate, the storage temperature, and the enrichment of cryopreserved fat grafts. A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE database up to November 2024 was performed, including original preclinical and clinical studies written in English describing the cryopreservation of unprocessed or mechanically processed adipose tissue (macrofat, microfat, or nanofat). Eligible articles needed to describe the applied cryopreservation protocol, at least the storage temperature. Studies on cryopreservation of adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs), stromal vascular fraction, microvascular fragments, and other isolated components of adipose tissue were excluded. Data on cryoprotectants, cooling and warming rates, storage temperature, and eventual supplementation or enrichment of frozen fat were collected. Of the 679 records identified, 59 met the inclusion criteria. Adipose tissue cryopreservation at -8
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
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.
How we grade evidence