Moti Harats1, Eran Millet2, Marie Jaeger2, Arie Orenstein3, Josef Haik2,4, Steven D Hajdu5,6, Gal Markel4,6,7, Eyal Winkler2, Ariel Tessone2,4. 1. The Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel. harats@gmail.com. 2. The Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel. 3. The Advanced Technologies Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel. 4. The Talpiyot Medical Leadership Program, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel. 5. Chirurgie, Hôpital du Jura, Delémont, Switzerland. 6. Ella Institute of Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel. 7. Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suction-assisted lipoplasty (SAL; liposuction) is an established aesthetic procedure in plastic surgery. The main parameters differentiating one method of lipoplasty from another are safety, consistency of results, and other more technical parameters. Due to the recent popularity of lipotransfer, the quality of extracted fat has become a relevant parameter. We compare the viability of extracted adipocytes after dry SAL, hyper-tumescent PAL (power-assisted lipoplasty), and water-assisted lipoplasty (WAL). METHODS: We used fluorescent microscopy to differentiate viable from necrotic/apoptotic cells after liposuction using each of the mentioned methods. RESULTS: The ratio of living cells between the three methods was significantly different with dry liposuction yielding inferior ratios (p = 0.011). When omitting extreme results, we found that the body-jet technique (WAL) yielded higher ratios of living cells than the hyper-tumescent technique (p < 0.001). The total number of cells was highest in the hyper-tumescent method (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the hyper-tumescent technique yields the highest number of cells, whereas the body-jet technique yields the highest living cells ratio. The dry technique is clearly inferior to both. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
BACKGROUND: Suction-assisted lipoplasty (SAL; liposuction) is an established aesthetic procedure in plastic surgery. The main parameters differentiating one method of lipoplasty from another are safety, consistency of results, and other more technical parameters. Due to the recent popularity of lipotransfer, the quality of extracted fat has become a relevant parameter. We compare the viability of extracted adipocytes after dry SAL, hyper-tumescent PAL (power-assisted lipoplasty), and water-assisted lipoplasty (WAL). METHODS: We used fluorescent microscopy to differentiate viable from necrotic/apoptotic cells after liposuction using each of the mentioned methods. RESULTS: The ratio of living cells between the three methods was significantly different with dry liposuction yielding inferior ratios (p = 0.011). When omitting extreme results, we found that the body-jet technique (WAL) yielded higher ratios of living cells than the hyper-tumescent technique (p < 0.001). The total number of cells was highest in the hyper-tumescent method (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the hyper-tumescent technique yields the highest number of cells, whereas the body-jet technique yields the highest living cells ratio. The dry technique is clearly inferior to both. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .