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 processing using an active filtration system compared to a passive system. Further large-scale studies of the efficacy and cost analysis of AFG are a necessary component of determining best practices in the field.
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 processing using an active filtration system compared to a passive system. Further large-scale studies of the efficacy and cost analysis of AFG are a necessary component of determining best practices in the field.
Authors: Russell E Kling; Babak J Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic; V Leroy Young; Keith M Hume; Catherine A Crotty; J Peter Rubin Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.730
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: Orlando Canizares; Jennifer E Thomson; Robert J Allen; Edward H Davidson; John P Tutela; Pierre B Saadeh; Stephen M Warren; Alexes Hazen Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Allen Gabriel; G Patrick Maxwell; Leah Griffin; Manish C Champaneria; Mousam Parekh; David Macarios Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 4.283