Studies in fat grafting: Part I. Effects of injection technique on in vitro fat viability and in vivo volume retention. Plastic and reconstructive surgery Chung, M. T., Paik, K. J., Atashroo, D. A., Hyun, J. S., McArdle, A., Senarath-Yapa, K., Zielins, E. R., Tevlin, R., Duldulao, C., Hu, M. S., Walmsley, G. G., Parisi-Amon, A., Momeni, A., Rimsa, J. R., Commons, G. W., Gurtner, G. C., Wan, D. C., Longaker, M. T. 2014; 134 (1): 29-38


Fat grafting has become increasingly popular for the correction of soft tissue deficits at many sites throughout the body. Long-term outcomes, however, depend on delivery of fat in the least traumatic fashion to optimize viability of the transplanted tissue. In this study, we compare the biologic properties of fat following injection using two methods.Lipoaspiration samples were obtained from five female donors and cellular viability, proliferation, and lipolysis were evaluated following injection using either a modified Coleman technique or an automated, low shear device. Comparisons were made to minimally processed, uninjected fat. Volume retention was also measured over twelve weeks following injection of fat under the scalp of immunodeficient mice using either the modified Coleman technique or the Adipose Tissue Injector. Finally, fat grafts were analyzed histologically.Fat viability and cellular proliferation were both significantly greater with the Adipose Tissue Injector relative to injection with the modified Coleman technique. In contrast, significantly less lipolysis was noted using the automated device. In vivo fat volume retention was significantly greater than with the modified Coleman technique at 4, 6, 8, and 12 week time points. This corresponded with significantly greater histological scores for healthy fat and lower scores for injury following injection with the device.Biological properties of injected tissues reflect how disruptive and harmful techniques for placement of fat may be, and our in vitro and in vivo data both support the use of the automated, low shear devices compared to the modified Coleman technique.

View details for DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000290

View details for PubMedID 24622574