Effect of fat particle-to-SVF ratio on graft survival rates in rabbits.
Ni Y., He X., Yuan Z., Liu M., Du H., Zhong X.
Animal Study, published in Ann Plast Surg (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- 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
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
- Animal Study
- Journal
- Ann Plast Surg (2015)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 23903086
- DOI
- 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318298e6f5
- Citations
- 18
Abstract (original English)
Objective This study aimed to compare the graft survival rates of various ratios of fat particles to stromal vascular fraction (SVF) in rabbits. Methods Fifteen purebred white rabbits of the same brood were used. In the study, the grafts of equal weight (0.8 g) were mixtures of fat particles with various proportions of SVF (1/3, 1/4, 1/5, and 1/6) to form 4 treated groups (I, II, III, and IV), whereas merely fat particles formed 1 control group. They were randomly autoimplanted into subcutaneous pockets on both sides of the dorsal midlines of the rabbits. Animals were killed 3 months after surgery. The grafts were harvested and weighed. Comparisons were performed between the groups for survival rates. Results The treated group II (fat particle-to-SVF ratio was 3:1) revealed the greatest weight maintenance in all of the groups, showing the greatest survival rate [87.94% (1.30%), P Conclusions It was suggested that the optimal fat particle-to-SVF ratio might be 3:1, with a low resorption rate.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.