ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019
A Comparison of Fat Graft Processing Techniques: Outcomes in 1,158 Procedures in Prosthetic Breast Reconstructions.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Advancing Soft Tissue Reconstruction with a Ready-to-Use Human Adipose Allograft.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- In Vitro Characterization of Fat Grafts Processed Using the REVOLVE ENVI System versus Decantation.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of a New Automatic System and Four Existing Techniques for Autologous Fat Grafting.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- The prognosis outcomes of autologous fat transfer for breast reconstruction after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.Gland surgery · 2022Article
- Review of Quantitative Imaging for Objective Assessment of Fat Grafting Outcomes in Breast Surgery.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2021Review
- Fat Processing Techniques: A Narrative Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As fat grafting in breast reconstruction evolves, questions of technique and outcomes persist. We compared 2 common fat processing techniques-decantation (DEC) versus closed wash and filtration (CWF)-with regard to outcomes and efficacy.
methodsChart review of a single surgeon experience with breast fat grafting was performed. Data extracted included demographics, technique, complications, graft volume, and revision rates. Secondarily, the timeline of complication profiles was analyzed. Lastly, subgroup analysis of radiated versus nonradiated breast outcomes was performed.
resultsOne thousand one hundred fifty-eight fat grafting procedures were performed on 775 breasts (654 DEC, 504 CWF). Time-to-event analysis for all complications showed no difference between groups. Independent risk factors for fat necrosis included DEC technique, body mass index >30 kg/m
conclusionsThis study represents the largest series of breast reconstruction fat grafting to date. DEC harvest technique may be a risk factor for fat necrosis, which results in less fat injection and greater need for repeat procedures. Similarly, radiated breasts require larger graft volume and more repeat procedures.
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.