Cargando…

Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Fat-processing Systems

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: An, Yang, Panayi, Adriana C., Mi, Bobin, Fu, Siqi, Orgill, Dennis P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32095398
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002587
_version_ 1783496831590727680
author An, Yang
Panayi, Adriana C.
Mi, Bobin
Fu, Siqi
Orgill, Dennis P.
author_facet An, Yang
Panayi, Adriana C.
Mi, Bobin
Fu, Siqi
Orgill, Dennis P.
author_sort An, Yang
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7015611
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70156112020-02-24 Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Fat-processing Systems An, Yang Panayi, Adriana C. Mi, Bobin Fu, Siqi Orgill, Dennis P. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Experimental 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. Wolters Kluwer Health 2020-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7015611/ /pubmed/32095398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002587 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Experimental
An, Yang
Panayi, Adriana C.
Mi, Bobin
Fu, Siqi
Orgill, Dennis P.
Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Fat-processing Systems
title Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Fat-processing Systems
title_full Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Fat-processing Systems
title_fullStr Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Fat-processing Systems
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Fat-processing Systems
title_short Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Fat-processing Systems
title_sort comparative analysis of two automated fat-processing systems
topic Experimental
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32095398
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002587
work_keys_str_mv AT anyang comparativeanalysisoftwoautomatedfatprocessingsystems
AT panayiadrianac comparativeanalysisoftwoautomatedfatprocessingsystems
AT mibobin comparativeanalysisoftwoautomatedfatprocessingsystems
AT fusiqi comparativeanalysisoftwoautomatedfatprocessingsystems
AT orgilldennisp comparativeanalysisoftwoautomatedfatprocessingsystems