ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Comparison of Stored and Fresh Injectable Acellular Adipose Matrix in Soft Tissue Reconstruction in a Murine Model.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-term Follow-up of Remnant Capsules After Implant Removal Without Capsulectomy: An Animal Model Study.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe previously showed comparable volume effects of injections of acellular adipose matrix (AAM), an adipose tissue-derived extracellular matrix, and conventional fat grafting in a murine model. Thus, AAM could be a novel allogenic injectable product. However, its retention rate poses a concern, as repeated AAM injections may be required in some cases. This study investigated the biological properties and therapeutic value of stored AAM and compared them with those of fresh AAM, in a murine model.
methodsAAM was manufactured from fresh human abdominoplasty fat. Fresh and stored injectable AAM was prepared within 24 h and 3 months after generation, respectively. Either fresh or stored injectable AAM was injected into the scalp of athymic nude mice (0.2 mL/sample, n = 6 per group). After 8 weeks, graft retention was assessed through weight measurement, and histological analysis was performed, including immunofluorescence staining for CD31 and perilipin.
resultsRetention rate was significantly reduced in the stored compared to the fresh injectable AAM group. Nevertheless, histological analysis revealed comparable inflammatory cell presence, with minimal capsule formation, in both groups. Adipogenesis occurred in both groups, with no significant difference in the blood vessel area (%) between groups.
conclusionsAlthough the volume effects of stored AAM for soft tissue reconstruction were limited compared to those of fresh injectable AAM, stored AAM had similar capacity for adipogenesis and angiogenesis. This promising allogeneic injectable holds the potential to serve as an effective "off-the-shelf" alternative for repeated use within a 3-month storage period. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors https://link.springer.com/journal/00266 .
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.