Yan Lin1, Yan Yang1, Dali Mu2. 1. Department of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 33 Badachu Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing, 100144, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 33 Badachu Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing, 100144, People's Republic of China. doctormudali@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study reviewed the literature regarding different fat processing techniques, in order to update the information for healthcare personnel and provide the latest evidence in selecting purification methods. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched to identify studies that compared different fat purification methods for animal and human studies published through July 2020. Papers were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria, and relative data were collected for review. RESULTS: A total of 3292 studies were identified, of which 30 were included for review. The findings of existing clinical studies showed that the filtration and washing filtration methods performed better in the volume retention rate of adipose tissue. In terms of postoperative complications (fat necrosis, nodules, cysts, etc.), the incidence of complications of centrifugation is generally higher than that of other purification methods, while Telfa gauze and washing filtration system show better safety. More comparative studies are needed to draw conclusions about clinical efficacy and satisfaction. The existing basic science studies generally believe that centrifugation has no advantage in the integrity and metabolic activity of adipose tissue. However, there is no definite conclusion about the volume retention rate of grafts in animal experiments. CONCLUSION: In recent years, studies on the cost-effectiveness of various purification methods have emerged, and the efficiency advantages of commercial systems have also been gradually reflected. In the future, the purification efficiency will be improved based on ensuring clinical efficacy, which will be translated into cost savings. 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 .
OBJECTIVE: This study reviewed the literature regarding different fat processing techniques, in order to update the information for healthcare personnel and provide the latest evidence in selecting purification methods. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched to identify studies that compared different fat purification methods for animal and human studies published through July 2020. Papers were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria, and relative data were collected for review. RESULTS: A total of 3292 studies were identified, of which 30 were included for review. The findings of existing clinical studies showed that the filtration and washing filtration methods performed better in the volume retention rate of adipose tissue. In terms of postoperative complications (fat necrosis, nodules, cysts, etc.), the incidence of complications of centrifugation is generally higher than that of other purification methods, while Telfa gauze and washing filtration system show better safety. More comparative studies are needed to draw conclusions about clinical efficacy and satisfaction. The existing basic science studies generally believe that centrifugation has no advantage in the integrity and metabolic activity of adipose tissue. However, there is no definite conclusion about the volume retention rate of grafts in animal experiments. CONCLUSION: In recent years, studies on the cost-effectiveness of various purification methods have emerged, and the efficiency advantages of commercial systems have also been gradually reflected. In the future, the purification efficiency will be improved based on ensuring clinical efficacy, which will be translated into cost savings. 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 .
Authors: Qing Zhao Ruan; Jacob R Rinkinen; Andres F Doval; Benjamin B Scott; Adam M Tobias; Samuel J Lin; Bernard T Lee Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: I Sarfati; R F D van la Parra; C A Terem-Rapoport; D Benyahi; C Nos; K B Clough Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 2.740
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