The Effect of Lipoaspirate Processing Technique on Complications in Autologous Fat Grafting for Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score Analysis Study
Abstract Background The use of autologous fat grafting (AFG) is becoming increasingly common as an adjunct to breast reconstruction. However, there is a paucity of data comparing the varying processing devices. Objectives The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of 2 commercially available...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Aesthetic surgery journal 2021-10, Vol.41 (10), p.1303-1309 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Abstract
Background
The use of autologous fat grafting (AFG) is becoming increasingly common as an adjunct to breast reconstruction. However, there is a paucity of data comparing the varying processing devices.
Objectives
The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of 2 commercially available AFG processing devices.
Methods
A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent AFG with dual-filter (Puregraft) or single-filter (Revolve) processing systems between 2016 and 2019. Propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for confounding. A total of 38 breasts from the Puregraft group were matched with 38 breasts from the Revolve group.
Results
Matching was successful in achieving a similar distribution of baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. The mean number of AFG sessions was comparable between the 2 groups (P = 0.37) with a similar median total volume (Puregraft, 159 mL vs Revolve, 130 mL; P = 0.23). Complication rates were similar between the 2 devices (Puregraft, 26%; Revolve, 18%; P = 0.47). Patients with at least 1 complication had higher overall AFG volume (median, 200 mL vs 130 mL; P = 0.03) and number of sessions (mean, 2.4 vs 1.8, P = 0.009) compared with those without any postoperative complication.
Conclusions
Overall complication rates were comparable between 2 commonly used, commercially available AFG processing systems, and therefore the choice of which to use should be based on surgeon preference. Future studies are underway to decipher whether either system offers superior graft retention, cosmetic, or patient-reported outcomes.
Level of Evidence: 3 |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1090-820X 1527-330X |
DOI: | 10.1093/asj/sjab235 |