ArticleAesthetic surgery journal2019
A Prospective Pilot Study Comparing Rate of Processing Techniques in Autologous Fat Grafting.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Streamlining the Fat: A Systematic Review of Active Closed Wash and Filtration in Autologous Fat Grafting After Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2023Pooled it
- Recent advances in volume retention and evaluation methods of fat grafting for breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of a New Automatic System and Four Existing Techniques for Autologous Fat Grafting.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Fat Processing Techniques: A Narrative Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2021Review
- Autologous fat grafting in breast reconstruction: implications for follow-up and surveillance.Gland surgery · 2021Review
- Fat Processing Techniques.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutologous 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.
objectivesThe purpose of this pilot study is to compare the rate of graft processing of two commercially available systems for graft preparation.
methodsTwenty 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.
resultsForty 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).
conclusionsTime 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2:
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.