A Prospective Pilot Study Comparing Rate of Processing Techniques in Autologous Fat Grafting
Hanson SE., Garvey PB., Chang EI., Reece G., Liu J., Butler CE.
Prospective Study with a reported sample of 4, published in Aesthet Surg J (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Prospective Study
- Journal
- Aesthet Surg J (2019)
- Reported sample size
- 4
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 29939216
- PMCID
- PMC6376341
- DOI
- 10.1093/asj/sjy154
- Citations
- 12
Abstract (original English)
Background Autologous fat grafting (AFG) is increasing in popularity to address a variety of defects. There is interest in developing techniques to harvest, process, and inject fat to improve clinical outcomes as well as operative efficiency. Objectives The purpose of this pilot study is to compare the rate of graft processing of two commercially available systems for graft preparation. Methods Twenty consecutive cases using an active filtration system (system-AF) were observed followed by 20 consecutive cases using a passive filtration system (system-PF) to compare efficiency rate. Fat processing rate was quantified in milliliters/minute. Results Forty patients underwent AFG with no differences in patient characteristics between the groups. There was 1 incidence of palpable fat necrosis per group (5%). For all patients, this was the first fat grafting procedure; 20% of patients (n = 4 per group) had additional fat grafting. Overall, the rate of adipose tissue preparation was significantly higher with system-AF compared to system-PF (19.8 mL/min vs 5.3 mL/min, P ≤ 0.001). The resulting percent of graftable fat was comparable (AF: 41% vs PF: 42%; P = 0.83). Conclusions Time and motion studies such as this provide a means to systematically document each of the steps involved in fat grafting in a reliable fashion. The authors demonstrate a significantly higher rate of lipoaspirate
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.