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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |