BACKGROUND: Fat grafting has become increasingly popular for the correction of soft-tissue deficits at many sites throughout the body. Long-term outcomes, however, depend on delivery of fat in the least traumatic fashion to optimize viability of the transplanted tissue. In this study, the authors compare the biological properties of fat following injection using two methods. METHODS: Lipoaspiration samples were obtained from five female donors, and cellular viability, proliferation, and lipolysis were evaluated following injection using either a modified Coleman technique or an automated, low-shear device. Comparisons were made to minimally processed, uninjected fat. Volume retention was also measured over 12 weeks after injection of fat under the scalp of immunodeficient mice using either the modified Coleman technique or the Adipose Tissue Injector. Finally, fat grafts were analyzed histologically. RESULTS: Fat viability and cellular proliferation were both significantly greater with the Adipose Tissue Injector relative to injection with the modified Coleman technique. In contrast, significantly less lipolysis was noted using the automated device. In vivo fat volume retention was significantly greater than with the modified Coleman technique at the 4-, 6-, 8-, and 12-week time points. This corresponded to significantly greater histologic scores for healthy fat and lower scores for injury following injection with the device. CONCLUSION: Biological properties of injected tissues reflect how disruptive and harmful techniques for placement of fat may be, and the authors' in vitro and in vivo data both support the use of the automated, low-shear devices compared with the modified Coleman technique.
BACKGROUND: Fat grafting has become increasingly popular for the correction of soft-tissue deficits at many sites throughout the body. Long-term outcomes, however, depend on delivery of fat in the least traumatic fashion to optimize viability of the transplanted tissue. In this study, the authors compare the biological properties of fat following injection using two methods. METHODS: Lipoaspiration samples were obtained from five female donors, and cellular viability, proliferation, and lipolysis were evaluated following injection using either a modified Coleman technique or an automated, low-shear device. Comparisons were made to minimally processed, uninjected fat. Volume retention was also measured over 12 weeks after injection of fat under the scalp of immunodeficientmice using either the modified Coleman technique or the Adipose Tissue Injector. Finally, fat grafts were analyzed histologically. RESULTS: Fat viability and cellular proliferation were both significantly greater with the Adipose Tissue Injector relative to injection with the modified Coleman technique. In contrast, significantly less lipolysis was noted using the automated device. In vivo fat volume retention was significantly greater than with the modified Coleman technique at the 4-, 6-, 8-, and 12-week time points. This corresponded to significantly greater histologic scores for healthy fat and lower scores for injury following injection with the device. CONCLUSION: Biological properties of injected tissues reflect how disruptive and harmful techniques for placement of fat may be, and the authors' in vitro and in vivo data both support the use of the automated, low-shear devices compared with the modified Coleman technique.
Authors: Kimberly J Butterwick; Pavan K Nootheti; Jessica W Hsu; Mitchel P Goldman Journal: Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 1.918
Authors: James T Heaton; James B Kobler; Mark P Ottensmeyer; Gerardo Lopez-Guerra; Sandeep S Karajanagi; James A Burns; Steven M Zeitels Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Min Zhu; Steven R Cohen; Kevin C Hicok; Rob K Shanahan; Brian M Strem; Johnson C Yu; Douglas M Arm; John K Fraser Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Christine Fisher; Tara L Grahovac; Mark E Schafer; Ron D Shippert; Kacey G Marra; J Peter Rubin Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Joan Fontdevila; Jose Maria Serra-Renom; Mauricio Raigosa; Joan Berenguer; Eva Guisantes; Eduardo Prades; Jesus Benito-Ruiz; Esteban Martinez Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.283
Authors: Rebecca M Garza; Robert C Rennert; Kevin J Paik; David Atashroo; Michael T Chung; Dominik Duscher; Michael Januszyk; Geoffrey C Gurtner; Michael T Longaker; Derrick C Wan Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: José Fábio Santos Duarte Lana; Anna Vitória Santos Duarte Lana; Lucas Furtado da Fonseca; Marcelo Amaral Coelho; Guilherme Gabriel Marques; Tomas Mosaner; Lucas Leite Ribeiro; Gabriel Ohana Marques Azzini; Gabriel Silva Santos; Eduardo Fonseca; Marco Antonio Percope de Andrade Journal: J Stem Cells Regen Med Date: 2022-04-05
Authors: Darren B Abbas; Christopher V Lavin; Evan J Fahy; Michelle Griffin; Nicholas J Guardino; Rahim S Nazerali; Dung H Nguyen; Arash Momeni; Michael T Longaker; Derrick C Wan Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 4.485
Authors: Ruth Tevlin; Adrian McArdle; Elizabeth Brett; Michael T Chung; Kevin Paik; Eun Young Seo; Graham G Walmsley; Christopher R Duldulao; David Atashroo; Elizabeth Zielins; Stephanie Vistnes; Charles K F Chan; Derrick C Wan; Michael T Longaker Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Pietro Gentile; Barbara De Angelis; Verdiana Di Pietro; Vittoria Amorosi; Maria G Scioli; Augusto Orlandi; Valerio Cervelli Journal: J Cutan Aesthet Surg Date: 2018 Jul-Sep
Authors: Stig-Frederik T Kølle; Dominik Duscher; Mikkel Taudorf; Anne Fischer-Nielsen; Jesper D Svalgaard; Lea Munthe-Fog; Bo Jønsson; Peter B Selvig; Frederik P Mamsen; Adam J Katz Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 6.940