Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Fat-processing Systems

• Published in: Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open Vol. 8; no. 1; p. e2587
• Main Authors: An, Yang, Panayi, Adriana C., Mi, Bobin, Fu, Siqi, Orgill, Dennis P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons 01-01-2020; Copyright The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. All rights reserved; Wolters Kluwer Health; Wolters Kluwer
• Subjects: Experimental
• ISSN: 2169-7574; 2169-7574
• DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002587

BACKGROUND:Plastic surgeons desire more efficient methods of processing lipoaspirate when performing fat grafting procedures. We compared, in a preclinical study, the quantity and quality of lipoaspirate processed by a novel Poloxamer Wash, Absorption, mesh filtration System (PWAS) to a frequently used Ringer’s Lactate wash, Decant, and mesh filtration System (RLDS).
METHODS:Lipoaspirate from 10 patients was processed with the RLDS and PWAS systems. The processed lipoaspirate from each device was centrifuged to quantify the amount of fat, free oil, and aqueous components remaining in the fat graft. A trypan blue dye exclusion test assessed cell viability. The processing time for the lipoaspirate was also measured.
RESULTS:The 10-patient average fat volume processed and available for grafting was similar using both systems. The adipose volume fraction of PWAS was greater (89% ± 3%) than RLDS (76% ± 10%, P = 0.02). The trypan blue exclusion values and processing time were similar for both systems. Oil was efficiently removed from the lipoaspirate, and both systems processed fat efficiently.
CONCLUSION:The PWAS effectively cleans lipoaspirate with increased fat concentration.