A classification of clinical fat grafting: Different problems, different solutions

Daniel Del Vecchio, Rod J. Rohrich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

61 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Fat grafting has reemerged from a highly variable procedure to a technique with vast reconstructive and cosmetic potential. Largely because of a more disciplined and scientific approach to fat grafting as a transplantation event, early adopters of fat transplantation have begun to approach fat grafting as a process, using sound surgical transplantation principles: recipient preparation, controlled donor harvest, time-efficient transplantation, and proper postoperative care. Despite these principles, different fat grafting techniques yield impressive clinical outcomes. Methods: The essential variables of four types of fat grafting cases were identified and compared: harvesting, methods of cell processing, methods of transplantation, and management of the recipient site. Results: Each case differed for most of the variables analyzed. The two clinical drivers that most impacted these differences were the volume demands of the recipient site and whether the recipient site was healthy tissue or pathologic tissue. After these two drivers, a matrix classification of small-volume versus large-volume and regenerative versus nonregenerative cases yields four distinct categories. Conclusions: Not all fat grafting is the same. Fat grafting, once thought to be a simple technique with variable results, is a much more complex procedure with at least four definable subtypes. By defining the essential differences in the recipient site, the key driver in fat transplantation, the proper selection of technique can be best chosen. In fat transplantation, different problems require different solutions. Clinical Question/Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, V.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)511-522
Number of pages12
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume130
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2012

Fingerprint

Fats
Transplantation
Postoperative Care
Cosmetics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

A classification of clinical fat grafting : Different problems, different solutions. / Del Vecchio, Daniel; Rohrich, Rod J.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 130, No. 3, 09.2012, p. 511-522.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Del Vecchio, Daniel ; Rohrich, Rod J. / A classification of clinical fat grafting : Different problems, different solutions. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2012 ; Vol. 130, No. 3. pp. 511-522.
@article{5af5bc78689f4b87878a90b3d4b64c97,
title = "A classification of clinical fat grafting: Different problems, different solutions",
abstract = "Background: Fat grafting has reemerged from a highly variable procedure to a technique with vast reconstructive and cosmetic potential. Largely because of a more disciplined and scientific approach to fat grafting as a transplantation event, early adopters of fat transplantation have begun to approach fat grafting as a process, using sound surgical transplantation principles: recipient preparation, controlled donor harvest, time-efficient transplantation, and proper postoperative care. Despite these principles, different fat grafting techniques yield impressive clinical outcomes. Methods: The essential variables of four types of fat grafting cases were identified and compared: harvesting, methods of cell processing, methods of transplantation, and management of the recipient site. Results: Each case differed for most of the variables analyzed. The two clinical drivers that most impacted these differences were the volume demands of the recipient site and whether the recipient site was healthy tissue or pathologic tissue. After these two drivers, a matrix classification of small-volume versus large-volume and regenerative versus nonregenerative cases yields four distinct categories. Conclusions: Not all fat grafting is the same. Fat grafting, once thought to be a simple technique with variable results, is a much more complex procedure with at least four definable subtypes. By defining the essential differences in the recipient site, the key driver in fat transplantation, the proper selection of technique can be best chosen. In fat transplantation, different problems require different solutions. Clinical Question/Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, V.",
author = "{Del Vecchio}, Daniel and Rohrich, {Rod J.}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dbf8a",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "130",
pages = "511--522",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A classification of clinical fat grafting

T2 - Different problems, different solutions

AU - Del Vecchio, Daniel

AU - Rohrich, Rod J.

PY - 2012/9

Y1 - 2012/9

N2 - Background: Fat grafting has reemerged from a highly variable procedure to a technique with vast reconstructive and cosmetic potential. Largely because of a more disciplined and scientific approach to fat grafting as a transplantation event, early adopters of fat transplantation have begun to approach fat grafting as a process, using sound surgical transplantation principles: recipient preparation, controlled donor harvest, time-efficient transplantation, and proper postoperative care. Despite these principles, different fat grafting techniques yield impressive clinical outcomes. Methods: The essential variables of four types of fat grafting cases were identified and compared: harvesting, methods of cell processing, methods of transplantation, and management of the recipient site. Results: Each case differed for most of the variables analyzed. The two clinical drivers that most impacted these differences were the volume demands of the recipient site and whether the recipient site was healthy tissue or pathologic tissue. After these two drivers, a matrix classification of small-volume versus large-volume and regenerative versus nonregenerative cases yields four distinct categories. Conclusions: Not all fat grafting is the same. Fat grafting, once thought to be a simple technique with variable results, is a much more complex procedure with at least four definable subtypes. By defining the essential differences in the recipient site, the key driver in fat transplantation, the proper selection of technique can be best chosen. In fat transplantation, different problems require different solutions. Clinical Question/Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, V.

AB - Background: Fat grafting has reemerged from a highly variable procedure to a technique with vast reconstructive and cosmetic potential. Largely because of a more disciplined and scientific approach to fat grafting as a transplantation event, early adopters of fat transplantation have begun to approach fat grafting as a process, using sound surgical transplantation principles: recipient preparation, controlled donor harvest, time-efficient transplantation, and proper postoperative care. Despite these principles, different fat grafting techniques yield impressive clinical outcomes. Methods: The essential variables of four types of fat grafting cases were identified and compared: harvesting, methods of cell processing, methods of transplantation, and management of the recipient site. Results: Each case differed for most of the variables analyzed. The two clinical drivers that most impacted these differences were the volume demands of the recipient site and whether the recipient site was healthy tissue or pathologic tissue. After these two drivers, a matrix classification of small-volume versus large-volume and regenerative versus nonregenerative cases yields four distinct categories. Conclusions: Not all fat grafting is the same. Fat grafting, once thought to be a simple technique with variable results, is a much more complex procedure with at least four definable subtypes. By defining the essential differences in the recipient site, the key driver in fat transplantation, the proper selection of technique can be best chosen. In fat transplantation, different problems require different solutions. Clinical Question/Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, V.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866029355&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866029355&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dbf8a

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dbf8a

M3 - Article

C2 - 22929236

AN - SCOPUS:84866029355

VL - 130

SP - 511

EP - 522

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 3

ER -