Trial reportJAMA facial plastic surgery2018
Three-dimensional Volumetric Analysis of 3 Fat-Processing Techniques for Facial Fat Grafting: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA facial plastic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autologous Fat Grafting in Facial Soft Tissue Defects: Application Status, Controversies and Future.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of the Causes of Differences in Centrifugation Protocols as a Fat-Processing Technique: A Systematic Literature Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Volume Retention After Facial Fat Grafting and Relevant Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Minimally invasive buried guidance combined with stable orbital septal fat fixation for correction of tear trough-associated lower eyelid bags: application and outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Enhanced Transconjunctival Lower Blepharoplasty: A Novel Method for Intraorbital Fat Transposition and Stabilization.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Survival Mechanisms and Retention Strategies in Large-Volume Fat Grafting: A Comprehensive Review and Future Perspectives.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Review
- Fat or fillers: The dilemma in eyelid surgery.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Review
- Breast fat grafting and cancer: a systematic review of the science behind enhancements and concerns.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2024Review
- Stromal Vascular Fraction Gel (SVF-Gel) Combined with Nanofat for Tear Trough Deformity.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Three-Dimensional Volumetric Analysis of the Effect of Interval Time in Autologous Fat Graft Breast Augmentation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Article
- Contouring and augmentation of the temple using stromal vascular fraction gel grafting.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Fat Processing Techniques: A Narrative Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2021Review
- Volumetric Effect of Pregnancy on a Unilateral Facial Fat Graft.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019Article
- Facial aesthetic fat graft retention rates after filtration, centrifugation, or sedimentation processing techniques measured using three-dimensional surface imaging devices.Chinese medical journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceAutologous fat grafting has revolutionized the field of facial soft-tissue augmentation, despite a lack of standardization. Objective data are needed to arrive at consensus regarding the best technique for optimal volume retention.
objectiveTo compare 3 fat-processing techniques with 3-dimensional (3-D) technology to explore the optimal fat-processing technique for improving the volume retention of grafted fat. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsFrom September 2015 to December 2016, patients with facial asymmetry were treated by initial facial fat grafting at the Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College. Sixty-three patients (21 per group) were randomized to 1 of 3 fat-processing techniques: sedimentation, centrifugation, and cotton pad filtration. Patients underwent 3-D scanning preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Patients who did not complete preoperative or postoperative follow-up and 3-D imaging were excluded from the analysis.
interventionAutologous fat grafting to correct facial asymmetry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The percentage volume maintenance of each fat-processing technique was measured with 3-D software and analyzed with variance analysis.
resultsOf the 63 randomized patients, 30 (7 men, 23 women; mean [SD] age at surgery, 22.2 [8.0] years) completed follow-up. The mean (SD) percentage volume maintenance of the 3 groups at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively was, respectively, 49% (4%), 45% (3%), 43% (3%), and 41% (3%) for the cotton pad filtration group; 41% (3%), 38% (4%), 36% (4%), and 34% (3%) for the centrifugation group; and 37% (4%), 34% (4%), 31% (3%), and 31% (3%) for sedimentation group. The variance analysis showed that the cotton pad filtration group demonstrated a statistically significant higher percentage volume maintenance in comparison with the centrifugation and sedimentation groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of 3-D technology provides an objective and accurate way to evaluate different fat-processing techniques. Autologous fat processed by cotton pad filtration had a significant higher volume retention than did that processed by centrifugation and sedimentation technique.
trial registrationchictr.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR-IOR-14005599. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.