ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020
Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Fat-processing Systems.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Fluidic Platform for Washing and Mechanical Processing of Lipoaspirate for Downstream Fat Grafting and Regenerative Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advancing Soft Tissue Reconstruction with a Ready-to-Use Human Adipose Allograft.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Tissue engineering strategies for breast reconstruction: a literature review of current advances and future directions.Annals of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Improving the Retention of Low-Volume Autologous Fat Grafting: A Comparative Analysis of Lipoaspirate Processing Techniques for Facial Feminization.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
- Strategies to Improve AFT Volume Retention After Fat Grafting.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Article
- 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
Plastic surgeons desire more efficient methods of processing lipoaspirate when performing fat grafting procedures. We compared, in a preclinical study, the quantity and quality of lipoaspirate processed by a novel Poloxamer Wash, Absorption, mesh filtration System (PWAS) to a frequently used Ringer's Lactate wash, Decant, and mesh filtration System (RLDS).
methodsLipoaspirate from 10 patients was processed with the RLDS and PWAS systems. The processed lipoaspirate from each device was centrifuged to quantify the amount of fat, free oil, and aqueous components remaining in the fat graft. A trypan blue dye exclusion test assessed cell viability. The processing time for the lipoaspirate was also measured.
resultsThe 10-patient average fat volume processed and available for grafting was similar using both systems. The adipose volume fraction of PWAS was greater (89% ± 3%) than RLDS (76% ± 10%,
conclusionThe PWAS effectively cleans lipoaspirate with increased fat concentration.
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.