Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMedOpen access

Evolution of the Push-2-Spin Fat Graft Processing Device: Enhancing Efficiency and Reducing Risk of Contamination.

Loder SJ., Bengur FB., Lee PL., Kokai L.

Laboratory Study on Scar, published in Aesthet Surg J Open Forum (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
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
Laboratory Study
Journal
Aesthet Surg J Open Forum (2023)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
38828094
PMCID
PMC11140534
DOI
10.1093/asjof/ojad093

Abstract (original English)

Background Small-volume fat graft efficiency is a critical determinant of the cost and material effectiveness of aesthetic fat grafting in the clinical space. Recent development of devices, such as the Push-2-Spin (P2S) system (Pittsburgh, PA), has improved upon the process by yielding a rapid, handheld, multi-use system to minimize operative time and mess. Objectives In this study, the authors describe further technical innovations on the P2S prototype that improve operative ease of use, time, and safety. Methods Abdominoplasty samples were obtained as discarded tissue. Lipoaspirate was collected utilizing a 3.0 mm liposuction cannula and processed through centrifugation (Coleman technique), gauze (telfa) rolling, mesh straining, the tabletop P2S device (prototype), or the P2S handheld (P2S-H) device. Operative processing time, spin time, oil fraction, stromal vascular fraction (SVF) yield and viability, and adipocyte viability were assessed to compare the efficacy and viability of each device/technique. Blood agar smears of lipoaspirate were performed to assess for risk of contamination. Results The P2S-H device outperformed its prior iteration in rotary and processing speed and was significantly faster than each other technique assessed. Furthermore, the use of an inline system offered significant advantages over open-air techniques in terms of resistance to contamination. S

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 evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research