ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2019
Fat Grafting into Younger Recipients Improves Volume Retention in an Animal Model.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Tracking Fat Grafts by Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Comparative Study of Adolescent and Adult Patients with Stable Localized Scleroderma.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Danger Zones of the Gluteal Anatomy: Improving the Safety Profile of the Gluteal Fat Grafting.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Senescence of donor cells impairs fat graft regeneration by suppressing adipogenesis and increasing expression of senescence-associated secretory phenotype factors.Stem cell research & therapy · 2021Article
- Deciphering the Emerging Roles of Adipocytes and Adipose-Derived Stem Cells in Fat Transplantation.Cell transplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSoft-tissue deficits associated with various craniofacial anomalies can be addressed by fat grafting, although outcomes remain unpredictable. Furthermore, consensus does not exist for timing of these procedures. Whereas some advocate approaching soft-tissue reconstruction after the underlying skeletal foundation has been corrected, other studies have suggested that earlier grafting may exploit a younger recipient niche that is more conducive to fat graft survival. As there is a dearth of research investigating effects of recipient age on fat graft volume retention, this study compared the effectiveness of fat grafting in younger versus older animals through a longitudinal, in vivo analysis.
methodsHuman lipoaspirate from three healthy female donors was grafted subcutaneously over the calvaria of immunocompromised mice. Volume retention over 8 weeks was evaluated using micro-computed tomography at three experimental ages: 3 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Histologic examination was performed on explanted grafts to evaluate graft health and vascularity. Recipient-site vascularity was also evaluated by confocal microscopy.
resultsThe greatest retention of fat graft volume was noted in the youngest group compared with both older groups (p < 0.05) at 6 and 8 weeks after grafting. Histologic and immunohistochemical analyses revealed that improved retention in younger groups was associated with greater fat graft integrity and more robust vascularization.
conclusionThe authors' study provides evidence that grafting fat into a younger recipient site correlates with improved volume retention over time, suggesting that beginning soft-tissue reconstruction with fat grafting in patients at an earlier age may be preferable to late correction.
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.