4.4 Review

Surgical Decision Making in Autologous Fat Grafting: An Evidence-Based Review of Techniques to Maximize Fat Survival

期刊

AESTHETIC SURGERY JOURNAL
卷 41, 期 -, 页码 S3-S15

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjab080

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Allergan Aesthetics, an Abbvie Company (Irvine, CA, USA)
  2. Suneva Medical, Inc. (San Diego, CA, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autologous fat grafting is widely used in plastic surgery for various applications, and despite issues with incomplete and unpredictable graft survival, using evidence to guide surgical decisions can maximize success.
Autologous fat grafting is an important tool in plastic surgery and is widely used for a variety of applications, both aesthetic and reconstructive. Despite an ever-increasing list of indications and extensive research over many years into improving outcomes, fat grafting remains plagued by incomplete and often unpredictable graft survival. Decisions made at each stage of surgery can potentially contribute to ultimate success, including donor site selection and preparation, fat harvest, processing, and purification of lipoaspirate, recipient site preparation, and delivery of harvested fat to the recipient site. In this review, we examine the evidence for and against proposed techniques at each stage of fat grafting. Areas of consensus identified include use of larger harvesting and grafting cannulas and slow injection speeds to limit cell damage due to shearing forces, grafting techniques emphasizing dispersion of fat throughout the tissue with avoidance of graft pooling, and minimizing exposure of the lipoaspirate to the environment during processing. Safety considerations include use of blunt-tipped needles or cannulas to avoid inadvertent intravascular injection as well as awareness of cannula position and avoidance of danger zones such as the subgluteal venous plexus. We believe that using the evidence to guide surgical decision-making is the key to maximizing fat grafting success.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据