Trial reportAnnals of plastic surgery2024
Assessing Long-Term Volume Retention in Breast Fat Grafting: A Comparative Study of Lipoaspirate Processing Techniques.
Trial report in Annals of plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing fat graft survival: from adipose-derived stem cell mechanisms to next-generation regenerative strategies.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Recent advances in volume retention and evaluation methods of fat grafting for breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAutologous fat grafting is a method of improving aesthetic outcomes after both breast reconstruction and aesthetic surgery through volume enhancement and tissue contouring. Long-lasting effects are linked to greater patient satisfaction and more optimal augmentation results. Harvesting, processing, and injection techniques may all affect the longevity of deformity filling. Our objective is to evaluate the effect of lipoaspirate processing modality on longitudinal volume retention after surgery.
methodsA prospective, single-institution, randomized control trial placed consented postmastectomy fat grafting patients into 1 of 3 treatment arms (active filtration, low-pressure decantation, and standard decantation) in a 1:1:1 ratio. A preoperative 3-dimensional scan of the upper torso was taken as baseline. At the 3-month postoperative visit, another 3D scan was taken. Audodesk Meshmixer was used to evaluate the volume change.
resultsThe volume of fat injected during the initial procedure did not differ significantly between the treatment arms (P > 0.05). Both active filtration and low-pressure decantation resulted in higher percentage volume retention than traditional decantation (P < 0.05). Active filtration and low-pressure decantation exhibited comparable degrees of fat maintenance at 3 months (P > 0.05). DISCUSSION: Compared with using traditional decantation as the lipoaspirate purification technique, active filtration and low-pressure decantation may have led to higher levels of cell viability by way of reduced cellular debris and other inflammatory components that may contribute to tissue resorption and necrosis. Further immunohistochemistry studies are needed to examine whether active filtration and low-pressure decantation lead to lipoaspirates with more concentrated viable adipocytes, progenitor cells, and factors for angiogenesis.
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.