Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Elliptical Lipoaspirate Activation Versus Coleman Technique: A Randomized Double-Blinded Clinical Trial on Adipose Tissue Grafting for Scar Treatment.
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutologous fat grafting is widely used in reconstructive surgery and its use is increasing in different areas of regenerative medicine. This study evaluates the impact of elliptical lipoaspirate activation on adipose tissue grafting outcomes, focusing on scar-related pain reduction, improved scar characteristics, and increased tissue elasticity, comparing these outcomes with the traditional Coleman method.
methodsThis randomized double-blinded clinical trial study was conducted at the Humanitas Research Hospital in Milan from October 2022 to December 2023. Forty-three women aged 18-75 undergoing second-stage breast reconstruction were enrolled. The control group (19 patients) received the Coleman technique, while the study group (24 patients) underwent an additional elliptically oriented centrifugation. Method for evaluations included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Range of Movement (ROM), the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), and shear wave elastography for tissue elasticity.
resultsBoth groups showed significant improvements over time. The case group demonstrated a greater decrease in VAS scores at 3 months (p = 0.015). POSAS scores were consistently better in the elliptical lipoaspirate activation group, significantly improving scar pruritus, pain, color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity. Total POSAS score for both patient and observer scales were statistically higher for the case group at 12 months (p = 0.009 and p = 0.003, respectively). Elastography showed higher tissue softness in the case group at 6 months (p = 0.015) and 12 months (p = 0.0005). Tissue hardness, measured with elastography, was significantly lower for the case group at 12 months (p = 0.003).
conclusionsThe elliptical lipoaspirate activation technique significantly enhances clinical outcomes, reducing pain and improving scar quality and tissue elasticity compared to the standard Coleman method. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40195135What 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.