Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fat Processing Techniques: A Narrative Review

  • Review
  • Fat Injection
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study reviewed the literature regarding different fat processing techniques, in order to update the information for healthcare personnel and provide the latest evidence in selecting purification methods.

Methods

PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched to identify studies that compared different fat purification methods for animal and human studies published through July 2020. Papers were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria, and relative data were collected for review.

Results

A total of 3292 studies were identified, of which 30 were included for review. The findings of existing clinical studies showed that the filtration and washing filtration methods performed better in the volume retention rate of adipose tissue. In terms of postoperative complications (fat necrosis, nodules, cysts, etc.), the incidence of complications of centrifugation is generally higher than that of other purification methods, while Telfa gauze and washing filtration system show better safety. More comparative studies are needed to draw conclusions about clinical efficacy and satisfaction. The existing basic science studies generally believe that centrifugation has no advantage in the integrity and metabolic activity of adipose tissue. However, there is no definite conclusion about the volume retention rate of grafts in animal experiments.

Conclusion

In recent years, studies on the cost-effectiveness of various purification methods have emerged, and the efficiency advantages of commercial systems have also been gradually reflected. In the future, the purification efficiency will be improved based on ensuring clinical efficacy, which will be translated into cost savings.

Level of evidence III

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ml CHEN (2019) The research process and hot topics on autologous fat transplantation. Chin J Aesthet Med 28:2–4

    Google Scholar 

  2. Xue EY, Narvaez L, Chu CK et al (2020) Fat processing techniques. Semin Plast Surg 34:11–16

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu R, Qi Z (2017) Comparative research progress of different fat purification methods. Chin J Aesthet Plast Surg 28:687–688

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gerth DJ, King B, Rabach L et al (2014) Long-term volumetric retention of autologous fat grafting processed with closed-membrane filtration. Aesthet Surg J 34:985–994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Asilian A, Siadat AH, Iraji R (2014) Comparison of fat maintenance in the face with centrifuge versus filtered and washed fat. J Res Med Sci 19:556–561

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Sarfati I, van la Parra RFD, Terem-Rapoport CA et al (2017) A prospective randomized study comparing centrifugation and sedimentation for fat grafting in breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 70:1218–1228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wu R, Yang X, Jin X et al (2018) Three-dimensional volumetric analysis of 3 fat-processing techniques for facial fat grafting: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 20:222–229

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gabriel A, Maxwell GP, Griffin L et al (2017) A comparison of two fat grafting methods on operating room efficiency and costs. Aesthet Surg J 37:161–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kang D, Luan J (2018) Fat Necrosis After Autologous Fat Transfer (AFT) to breast: comparison of low-speed centrifugation with sedimentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 42:1457–1464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ruan QZ, Rinkinen JR, Doval AF et al (2019) Safety profiles of fat processing techniques in autologous fat transfer for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 143:985–991

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chiu WK, Fracol M, Feld LN et al (2019) A comparison of fat graft processing techniques: outcomes in 1,158 procedures in prosthetic breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 7:e2276

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Butterwick KJ (2002) Lipoaugmentation for aging hands: a comparison of the longevity and aesthetic results of centrifuged versus noncentrifuged fat. Dermatol Surg 28:987–991

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Botti G, Pascali M, Botti C et al (2011) A clinical trial in facial fat grafting: filtered and washed versus centrifuged fat. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:2464–2473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hanson SE, Garvey PB, Chang EI et al (2019) A prospective pilot study comparing rate of processing techniques in autologous fat grafting. Aesthet Surg J 39:331–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Minn KW, Min KH, Chang H et al (2010) Effects of fat preparation methods on the viabilities of autologous fat grafts. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:626–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Salinas HM, Broelsch GF, Fernandes JR et al (2014) Comparative analysis of processing methods in fat grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:675–683

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher C, Grahovac TL, Schafer ME et al (2013) Comparison of harvest and processing techniques for fat grafting and adipose stem cell isolation. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:351–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Canizares O Jr, Thomson JE, Allen RJ Jr et al (2017) The Effect of processing technique on fat graft survival. Plast Reconstr Surg 140:933–943

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Condé-Green A, Wu I, Graham I et al (2013) Comparison of 3 techniques of fat grafting and cell-supplemented lipotransfer in athymic rats: a pilot study. Aesthet Surg J 33:713–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kang D, Fu S, Luan J (2019) Which fat processing can achieve optimal transplantation in patients with insufficient fat resource? Ann Plast Surg 83:459–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ansorge H, Garza JR, McCormack MC et al (2014) Autologous fat processing via the Revolve system: quality and quantity of fat retention evaluated in an animal model. Aesthet Surg J 34:438–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yin S, Luan J, Fu S et al (2016) Is centrifugation necessary for processing lipoaspirate harvested via water-jet force assisted technique before grafting? Evidence of lipoaspirate concentration with enhanced fat graft survival. Ann Plast Surg 77:477–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Khater R, Atanassova P, Anastassov Y et al (2009) Clinical and experimental study of autologous fat grafting after processing by centrifugation and serum lavage. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:37–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhu M, Cohen SR, Hicok KC et al (2013) Comparison of three different fat graft preparation methods: gravity separation, centrifugation, and simultaneous washing with filtration in a closed system. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:873–880

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Condé-Green A, de Amorim NF, Pitanguy I (2010) Influence of decantation, washing and centrifugation on adipocyte and mesenchymal stem cell content of aspirated adipose tissue: a comparative study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:1375–1381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ibatici A, Caviggioli F, Valeriano V et al (2014) Comparison of cell number, viability, phenotypic profile, clonogenic, and proliferative potential of adipose-derived stem cell populations between centrifuged and noncentrifuged fat. Aesthet Plast Surg 38:985–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pfaff M, Wu W, Zellner E et al (2014) Processing technique for lipofilling influences adipose-derived stem cell concentration and cell viability in lipoaspirate. Aesthet Plast Surg 38:224–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Palumbo P, Miconi G, Cinque B et al (2015) In vitro evaluation of different methods of handling human liposuction aspirate and their effect on adipocytes and adipose derived stem cells. J Cell Physiol 230:1974–1981

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rose JG Jr, Lucarelli MJ, Lemke BN et al (2006) Histologic comparison of autologous fat processing methods. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 22:195–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kamel AH, Kamal A, Abou-Elghait AT (2014) A quantitative analysis of the effects of different harvesting, preparation, and injection methods on the integrity of fat cells. Eur J Plast Surg 37:469–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rubino C, Mazzarello V, Faenza M et al (2015) A scanning electron microscope study and statistical analysis of adipocyte morphology in lipofilling: comparing the effects of harvesting and purification procedures with 2 different techniques. Ann Plast Surg 74:718–721

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Li Y, Lu H, Yang X et al (2020) Optimization of the parameters of different purification techniques and comparison of their purification efficiency and their effects on the metabolic activity of adipose tissue in autologous fat transplantation. J Craniofac Surg 31:662–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. An Y, Panayi AC, Mi B et al (2020) Comparative analysis of two automated fat-processing systems. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 8:e2587

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kling RE, Mehrara BJ, Pusic AL et al (2013) Trends in autologous fat grafting to the breast: a national survey of the american society of plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:35–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cleveland EC, Albano NJ, Hazen A (2015) Roll, spin, wash, or filter? processing of lipoaspirate for autologous fat grafting: an updated, evidence-based review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 136:706–713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Allen RJ Jr, Canizares O Jr, Scharf C et al (2013) Grading lipoaspirate: is there an optimal density for fat grafting? Plast Reconstr Surg 131:38–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Khouri RK, Rigotti G, Cardoso E et al (2014) Megavolume autologous fat transfer: part II practice and techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:1369–1377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Glashofer M, Lawrence N (2006) Fat transplantation for treatment of the senescent face. Dermatol Ther 19:169–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yoshimura K, Sato K, Aoi N et al (2008) Cell-assisted lipotransfer for cosmetic breast augmentation: supportive use of adipose-derived stem/stromal cells. Aesthet Plast Surg 32:48–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Suga H, Eto H, Aoi N et al (2010) Adipose tissue remodeling under ischemia: death of adipocytes and activation of stem/progenitor cells. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:1911–1923

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sadat S, Gehmert S, Song YH et al (2007) The cardioprotective effect of mesenchymal stem cells is mediated by IGF-I and VEGF. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 363:674–679

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gabriel A, Champaneria MC, Maxwell GP (2015) Fat grafting and breast reconstruction: tips for ensuring predictability. Gland Surg 4:232–243

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Moore JH, Kolaczynski JW, Morales LM et al (1995) Viability of fat obtained by syringe suction lipectomy: effects of local anesthesia with lidocaine. Aesthet Plast Surg 19:335–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang LJ, Qing T, Ma SL (2010) Effect of rising on fat viability. J Tissue Eng Reconstr Surg 6:222–224

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 33 Badachu Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing, 100144, People’s Republic of China

    Yan Lin, Yan Yang & Dali Mu

Authors
  1. Yan Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dali Mu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dali Mu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, Y., Yang, Y. & Mu, D. Fat Processing Techniques: A Narrative Review. Aesth Plast Surg 45, 730–739 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-02069-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-02069-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation