Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of the Causes of Differences in Centrifugation Protocols as a Fat-Processing Technique: A Systematic Literature Review

  • Review
  • Special Topic
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Centrifugation has been widely used for fat graft processing. However, numerous different centrifugation protocols have been proposed in different studies. Investigation of these major differences is needed to clarify ambiguities and to achieve standardization. This review aimed to assess the causes of differences in centrifugation protocols as a fat-processing technique.

Methods

Full-text and English-language articles between 1990 and 2020 were included in this study. Articles that assess the effect of centrifugation on fat graft survival with the following research purposes were selected: determination of the effect of centrifugation force/speed, determination of the effect of centrifugation time/duration, and comparison with other fat-processing techniques.

Results

Fifty-four full-text, English-language articles were included. The number of articles that assessed centrifugation force/speed was 17 and centrifugation duration/time was 4, and the number of articles that compared centrifugation with other fat-processing techniques was 29 and centrifugation with noncentrifugation techniques was 4. Based on the study design, 25 experiments were performed in vivo, and 41 were performed in vitro.

Conclusion

Misuse of force (g) and speed (rpm) for defining the centrifugation protocol, differences in selected techniques for the graft harvest and graft transfer steps and differences in the analysis methods for fat graft survival are the main causes of these substantial variations among studies.

Level of Evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Coleman SR (2006) Structural fat grafting: more than a permanent filler. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:108S–120S

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufman MR, Bradley JP, Dickinson B et al (2007) Autologous fat transfer national consensus survey: trends in techniques for harvest, preparation, and application, and perception of short- and long-term results. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:323–331

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Piasecki JH, Gutowski KA, Lahvis GP et al (2007) An experimental model for improving fat graft viability and purity. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:1571–1583

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pulsfort AK, Walter TP, Pallua N (2011) The effect of centrifugal forces on viability of adipocytes in centrifugated lipoaspirates. Ann Plast Surg 66(3):292–295

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boschert MT, Beckert BW, Puckett LC et al (2002) Analysis of lipocyte viability after liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:761

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoareau L, Bencharif K, Girard AC et al (2013) Effect of centrifugation and washing on adipose graft viability: a new method to improve graft efficiency. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66:712–719

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferraro GA, De Francesco F, Tirino V et al (2011) Effects of a new centrifugation method on adipose cell viability for autologous fat grafting. Aesthet Plast Surg 35:341–348

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chajchir A, Benzaquen I, Moretti E (1993) Comparative experimental study of autologous adipose tissue processed by different techniques. Aesthet Plast Surg 17(2):113–115

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kurita M, Matsumoto D, Shigeura T et al (2008) Influences of centrifugation on cells and tissues in liposuction aspirates: optimized centrifugation for lipotransfer and cell isolation. Plast Reconstr Surg 121(3):1033–1041 discussion 1042

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Galiè M, Pignatti M, Scambi I et al (2008) Comparison of different centrifugation protocols for the best yield of adipose-derived stromal cells from lipoaspirates. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(6):233e–234e

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Xie Y, Zheng D, Li Q, Chen Y et al (2010) The effect of centrifugation on viability of fat grafts: an evaluation with the glucose transport test. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:482–487

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim IH, Yang JD, Lee DG et al (2009) Evaluation of centrifugation technique and effect of epinephrine on fat cell viability in autologous fat injection. Aesthet Surg J 29:35–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pu LL, Coleman SR, Cui X et al (2008) Autologous fat grafts harvested and refined by the Coleman technique: a comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg 122:932–937

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee JH, Kirkham JC, McCormack MC et al (2013) The effect of pressure and shear on autologous fat grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:1125–1136

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Salinas HM, Broelsch GF, Fernandes JR et al (2014) Comparative analysis of processing methods in fat grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:675–683

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Son D, Choi T, Yeo H et al (2014) The effect of centrifugation condition on mature adipocytes and adipose stem cell viability. Ann Plast Surg 72:589–593

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cucchiani R, Corrales L (2016) The effects of fat harvesting and preparation, air exposure, obesity and stem cell enrichment on adipocyte viability prior to graft transplantation. Aesthet Surg J 36(10):1164–1173

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bozkurt M, Kapı E, Şirinoğlu H, Güvercin E, Filinte GT, Filinte D (2016) The effects of the centrifugation speed on the survival of autogenous fat grafts in a rat model. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 50(3):161–166

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Palumbo P, Miconi G, Cinque B et al (2015) In vitro evaluation of different methods of handling human liposuction aspirate and their effect on adipocytes and adipose derived stem cells. J Cell Physiol 230:1974–1981

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shiffman MA, Mirrafati S (2001) Fat transfer techniques: the effect of harvest and transfer methods on adipocyte viability and review of literature. Dermatol Surg 27(9):819–826

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Huss FR, Kratz G (2002) Adipose tissue processed for lipoinjection shows increased cellular survival in vitro when tissue engineering principles are applied. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 36(3):166–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ramon Y, Shoshani O, Peled IJ et al (2005) Enhancing the take of injected adipose tissue by a simple method for concentrating fat cells. Plast Reconstr Surg 115:197–201 discussion 202-203

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rose JG Jr, Lucarelli MJ, Lemke BN et al (2006) Histologic comparison of autologous fat processing methods. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 22(3):195–200

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferguson RE, Cui X, Fink BF et al (2008) The viability of autologous fat grafts harvested with the LipiVage system: a comparative study. Ann Plast Surg 60:594–597

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Khater R, Atanassova P, Atanassov Y et al (2009) Clinical and experimental study of autologous fat grafting after processing by centrifugation and serum lavage. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:37–43

    Google Scholar 

  26. Smith P, Adams WP Jr, Lipschitz AH et al (2006) Autologous human fat grafting: effect of harvesting and preparation techniques on adipocyte graft survival. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:1836–1844

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Minn KW, Min KH, Chang H et al (2010) Effects of fat preparation methods on the viabilities of autologous fat grafts. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:626–631

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fisher C, Grahovac TL, Schafer ME et al (2013) Comparison of harvest and processing techniques for fat grafting and adipose stem cell isolation. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(02):351–361

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Botti G, Pascali M, Botti C et al (2011) A clinical trial in facial fat grafting: filtered and washed versus centrifuged fat. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:2464–2473

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhu M, Cohen SR, Hicok KC et al (2013) Comparison of three different fat graft preparation methods: gravity separation, centrifugation, and simultaneous washing with filtration in a closed system. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:873–880

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pfaff M, Wu W, Zellner E et al (2014) Processing technique for lipofilling influences adipose-derived stem cell concentration and cell viability in lipoaspirate. Aesthet Plast Surg 38(01):224–229

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mestak O, Sukop A, Hsueh YS et al (2014) Centrifugation versus PureGraft for fatgrafting to the breast after breast-conserving therapy. World J Surg Oncol 12:178

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kamel AH, Kamal A, Abou-Elghait AT (2014) A quantative analysis of the effects of different harvesting, preparation, and injection methods on the integrity of fat cells. Eur J Plast Surg 37:469–478

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ansorge H, Garza JR, McCormack MC et al (2014) Autologous fat processing via the revolve system: quality and quantity of fat retention evaluated in an animal model. Aesthet Surg J 34:438–447

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Girard AC, Mirbeau S, Gence L et al (2015) Effect of washes and centrifugation on the efficacy of lipofilling with or without local anesthetic. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(8):e496

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Rubino C, Mazzarello V, Faenza M et al (2015) A scanning electron microscope study and statistical analysis of adipocyte morphology in lipofilling: comparing the effects of harvesting and purification procedures with 2 different techniques. Ann Plast Surg 74:718–721

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sarfati I, van la Parra RFD, Terem-Rapoport CA et al (2017) A prospective randomized study comparing centrifugation and sedimentation for fat grafting in breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 70(09):1218–1228

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Canizares O Jr, Thomson JE, Allen RJ Jr et al (2017) The effect of processing technique on fat graft survival. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(05):933–943

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Streit L, Jaros J, Sedlakova V et al (2017) A comprehensive in vitro comparison of preparation techniques for fat grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(3):670e–682e

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wu R, Yang X, Jin X et al (2018) Three-dimensional volumetric analysis of 3 fat-processing techniques for facial fat grafting: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 20:222–229

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Ruan QZ, Rinkinen JR, Doval AF et al (2019) Safety profiles of fat processing techniques in autologous fat transfer for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(4):985–991

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kang D, Fu S, Luan J (2019) Which fat processing can achieve optimal transplantation in patients with insufficient fat resource? Ann Plast Surg 83(4):459–463

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Condé-Green A, de Amorim NF, Pitanguy I (2010) Influence of decantation, washing and centrifugation on adipocyte and mesenchymal stem cell content of aspirated adipose tissue: a comparative study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:1375–1381

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Condé-Green A, Baptista LS, de Amorin NF et al (2010) Effects of centrifugation on cell composition and viability of aspirated adipose tissue processed for transplantation. Aesthet Surg J 30:249–255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Condé-Green A, Wu I, Graham I et al (2013) Comparison of 3 techniques of fat grafting and cell-supplemented lipotransfer in athymic rats: a pilot study. Aesthet Surg J 33:713–721

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Butterwick KJ (2002) Lipoaugmentation for aging hands: a comparison of the longevity and aesthetic results of centrifuged versus noncentrifuged fat. Dermatol Surg 28:987–991

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rohrich RJ, Sorokin ES, Brown SA (2004) In search of improved fat transfer viability: a quantitative analysis of the role of centrifugation and harvest site. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:391–395 discussion 396

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ibatici A, Caviggioli F, Valeriano V et al (2014) Comparison of cell number, viability, phenotypic profile, clonogenic, and proliferative potential of adipose-derived stem cell populations between centrifuged and noncentrifuged fat. Aesthet Plast Surg 38:985–993

    Google Scholar 

  49. Yin S, Luan J, Fu S (2016) Is centrifugation necessary for processing lipoaspirate harvested via water-jet force assisted technique before grafting? evidence of lipoaspirate concentration with enhanced fat graft survival. Ann Plast Surg 77(4):477–484

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, Denizli Devlet Hastanesi, Sırakapılar, Selcuk Caddesi, Merkezefendi, 20100, Denizli, Turkey

    Oguzhan Demirel

  2. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, Medicine Hospital, Barbaros, Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Cd. No: 149, 34203, Bağcılar, Istanbul, Turkey

    Funda Aköz Saydam

Authors
  1. Oguzhan Demirel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Funda Aköz Saydam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

OD: First reviewer, design of study, data analysis, data interpretation, and manuscript preparation. FAS: Second reviewer, design of study, data analysis, data interpretation, and manuscript adjustments.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oguzhan Demirel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All of the authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Pamukkale University Hospital Local Ethical Committee. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Demirel, O., Aköz Saydam, F. Assessment of the Causes of Differences in Centrifugation Protocols as a Fat-Processing Technique: A Systematic Literature Review. Aesth Plast Surg 45, 1242–1265 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01999-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01999-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation