A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Clinical Outcomes with Different Processing Techniques in Autologous Fat Grafting

被引:10
|
作者
Hanson, Summer E.
Garvey, Patrick B.
Chang, Edward, I
Reece, Gregory P.
Liu, Jun
Baumann, Donald P.
Butler, Charles E.
机构
[1] Univ Chicago, Dept Surg, Med & Biol Sci, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[2] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Plast Surg, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; ONCOLOGIC SAFETY; COMPLICATIONS; INJECTION; TRENDS; RATES;
D O I
10.1097/PRS.0000000000009613
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Autologous fat grafting is a useful tool in breast reconstruction. The authors have previously demonstrated a difference in the rate of processing adipose grafts in a randomized time and motion clinical trial. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes in commonly used grafting systems. Methods: Three methods to prepare adipose grafts were compared: a passive washing filtration system (Puregraft system), an active washing filtration system (Revolve system), and centrifugation (Coleman technique). Postoperative complications, rates of fat necrosis, revision procedures, and additional imaging were recorded. Results: Forty-six patients were included in the prospective, randomized study (15 active filtration, 15 passive filtration, and 16 centrifugation). Their mean age was 54 years and mean body mass index was 28.6 kg/m2. The mean length of follow-up was 16.9 +/- 4 months. The overall complication rate was 12.1 percent. The probability of fat necrosis was no different between the groups (active filtration, 15 percent versus passive filtration, 14.3 percent] versus centrifugation, 8 percent; p = 0.72). Fat necrosis was highest in patients with breast conservation before grafting (60 percent; p = 0.011). There was no significant difference in contour irregularity (active filtration, 40 percent versus passive filtration, 38 percent versus centrifugation, 36 percent; p = 0.96) or additional grafting (active filtration, 40 percent versus passive filtration, 24 percent versus centrifugation, 32 percent; p = 0.34). Conclusions: This is the first prospective, randomized study to compare clinical outcomes of adipose graft preparation. There was no significant difference in early complications, fat necrosis, or rates of additional grafting among the study groups. There was significantly higher risk of fat necrosis in patients with previous breast conservation treatment regardless of processing technique. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 150: 955, 2022.) CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
引用
收藏
页码:955 / 962
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A Classification of Clinical Fat Grafting: Different Problems, Different Solutions
    Del Vecchio, Daniel
    Rohrich, Rod J.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2012, 130 (03) : 511 - 522
  • [42] Autologous Fat Grafting as Treatment of Postmastectomy Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Sollie, Martin
    Toyserkani, Navid M.
    Bille, Camilla
    Thomsen, Jorn Bo
    Sorensen, Jens Ahm
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2022, 149 (02) : 295 - 305
  • [43] Autologous Fat Grafting as Treatment of Postmastectomy Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Lisa, Andrea
    Vinci, Valeriano
    Battistini, Andrea
    Klinger, Francesco
    Klinger, Marco
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2023, 151 (03) : 520E - 521E
  • [44] Comparison of Telfa Rolling and a Closed Washing System for Autologous Fat Processing Techniques in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction
    Valmadrid, Al C.
    Kaoutzanis, Christodoulos
    Wormer, Blair A.
    Farinas, Angel F.
    Wang, Li
    Al Kassis, Salam
    Perdikis, Galen
    Braun, Stephane A.
    Higdon, Kent K.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2020, 146 (03) : 486 - 497
  • [45] Discussion: A Comprehensive In Vitro Comparison of Preparation Techniques for Fat Grafting
    Buchanan, Patrick J.
    Katz, Adam J.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 139 (03) : 683E - 684E
  • [46] Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: Open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: A randomized clinical trial
    Al-Kandari, Ahmed M.
    Shabaan, Hani
    Ibrahim, Hamdi M.
    Elshebiny, Yehya H.
    Shokeir, Ahmed A.
    UROLOGY, 2007, 69 (03) : 417 - 420
  • [47] Patient reported outcomes of autologous fat grafting after breast cancer surgery
    Brown, A. W. W.
    Kabir, M.
    Sherman, K. A.
    Meybodi, F.
    French, J. R.
    Elder, E. B.
    BREAST, 2017, 35 : 14 - 20
  • [48] The Current State of Fat Grafting: A Review of Harvesting, Processing, and Injection Techniques
    Strong, Amy L.
    Cederna, Paul S.
    Rubin, J. Peter
    Coleman, Sydney R.
    Levi, Benjamin
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2015, 136 (04) : 897 - 912
  • [49] A Prospective Randomized Outcomes Comparison of Two Temple Migraine Trigger Site Deactivation Techniques
    Guyuron, Bahman
    Harvey, Donald
    Reed, Deborah
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2015, 136 (01) : 159 - 165
  • [50] Oncological Safety of Autologous Fat Grafting after Breast Conservative Treatment: A Prospective Evaluation
    Brenelli, Fabricio
    Rietjens, Mario
    De Lorenzi, Francesca
    Pinto-Neto, Aarao
    Rossetto, Fabio
    Martella, Stefano
    Rodrigues, Jose R. P.
    Barbalho, Daniel
    BREAST JOURNAL, 2014, 20 (02): : 159 - 165