Improving the Retention of Low-Volume Autologous Fat Grafting: A Comparative Analysis of Lipoaspirate Processing Techniques for Facial Feminization

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Outcomes following autologous fat grafting have historically been unpredictable because of variability in fat retention rates. The novel poloxamer wash, absorption, mesh filtration system (PWAS) uses proprietary technology to stabilize and concentrate lipoaspirate. Its use in low-volume fat grafting has not been reported. Objectives The authors in this study aimed to compare PWAS technology with traditional lipoaspirate processing techniques in low-volume fat grafting procedures. Methods Medical charts were reviewed to determine a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent fat grafting for facial feminization. All patients had obtained preoperative and postoperative 3-dimensional facial imaging. Patients were grouped based on the method of lipoaspirate processing. The analysis software was used to measure changes in facial volume, and percent retention was calculated. Results Between September 2021 and February 2023, 11 facial fat grafting procedures were performed using the PWAS, and 5 performed using traditional lipoaspirate osmotic filtration with Telfa. Age and BMI were statistically similar between both the groups (P > .1). The average volume of lipoaspirate that was grafted was 23.4 mL (standard deviation [SD] 10.9 mL) and similar between both the groups (P > .1). The mean follow-up duration was 7.1 months (SD 3.1 months): 7.2 months, SD 3.5 months in the PWAS group vs 7.0 months, SD 2.2 months in the osmotic filtration group (P > .5). The average fat volume retention rate was 73.1% (SD 6.8%) in patients in whom the PWAS was used when compared with 46.1% (SD 5.2%) in patients in whom osmotic filtration was used (P > .01). Conclusions For patients undergoing low volume fat grafting, the PWAS technology may result in improved fat retention rates when compared with traditional lipoaspirate processing with Telfa. Level of Evidence: 4

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.