Oguzhan Demirel1, Funda Aköz Saydam2. 1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, Denizli Devlet Hastanesi, Sırakapılar, Selcuk Caddesi, Merkezefendi, 20100, Denizli, Turkey. mdoguzhandemirel@gmail.com. 2. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, Medicine Hospital, Barbaros, Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Cd. No: 149, 34203, Bağcılar, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Centrifugation has been widely used for fat graft processing. However, numerous different centrifugation protocols have been proposed in different studies. Investigation of these major differences is needed to clarify ambiguities and to achieve standardization. This review aimed to assess the causes of differences in centrifugation protocols as a fat-processing technique. METHODS: Full-text and English-language articles between 1990 and 2020 were included in this study. Articles that assess the effect of centrifugation on fat graft survival with the following research purposes were selected: determination of the effect of centrifugation force/speed, determination of the effect of centrifugation time/duration, and comparison with other fat-processing techniques. RESULTS: Fifty-four full-text, English-language articles were included. The number of articles that assessed centrifugation force/speed was 17 and centrifugation duration/time was 4, and the number of articles that compared centrifugation with other fat-processing techniques was 29 and centrifugation with noncentrifugation techniques was 4. Based on the study design, 25 experiments were performed in vivo, and 41 were performed in vitro. CONCLUSION: Misuse of force (g) and speed (rpm) for defining the centrifugation protocol, differences in selected techniques for the graft harvest and graft transfer steps and differences in the analysis methods for fat graft survival are the main causes of these substantial variations among studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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: Centrifugation has been widely used for fat graft processing. However, numerous different centrifugation protocols have been proposed in different studies. Investigation of these major differences is needed to clarify ambiguities and to achieve standardization. This review aimed to assess the causes of differences in centrifugation protocols as a fat-processing technique. METHODS: Full-text and English-language articles between 1990 and 2020 were included in this study. Articles that assess the effect of centrifugation on fat graft survival with the following research purposes were selected: determination of the effect of centrifugation force/speed, determination of the effect of centrifugation time/duration, and comparison with other fat-processing techniques. RESULTS: Fifty-four full-text, English-language articles were included. The number of articles that assessed centrifugation force/speed was 17 and centrifugation duration/time was 4, and the number of articles that compared centrifugation with other fat-processing techniques was 29 and centrifugation with noncentrifugation techniques was 4. Based on the study design, 25 experiments were performed in vivo, and 41 were performed in vitro. CONCLUSION: Misuse of force (g) and speed (rpm) for defining the centrifugation protocol, differences in selected techniques for the graft harvest and graft transfer steps and differences in the analysis methods for fat graft survival are the main causes of these substantial variations among studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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.
Keywords:
Centrifuge; Duration; Fat; Force; Graft; Speed; Survival; Time
Authors: Matthew R Kaufman; James P Bradley; Brian Dickinson; Justin B Heller; Kristy Wasson; Catherine O'Hara; Catherine Huang; Joubin Gabbay; Kiu Ghadjar; Timothy A Miller Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.730