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 is to compare the outcomes of two commercially available AFG processing devices.
Methods
The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent AFG using dual filter (Puregraft®) or single filter (Revolve TM) 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 TM system.
Results
Matching was successful in achieving a similar distribution of baseline characteristics between the two groups. The mean number of AFG sessions was comparable between the two groups (p=0.37) with a similar median total volume (Puregraft®, 159 ml vs. Revolve TM, 130 ml, p=0.23). Complication rates were similar between the two devices (Puregraft®, 26%; Revolve TM,18%; p=0.47). Patients with at least one complication had higher overall AFG volume (median, 200 vs.130 ml, p=0.03) and number of sessions (mean, 2.4 vs.1.8, p=0.009) compared to those without any postoperative complication.
Conclusions
The decision for which processing system to use for autologous fat grafting should be based on surgeon preference as overall complication rates were comparable between two commonly used commercially available systems. Future studies are underway to decipher whether either system has superior graft retention, cosmetic or patient reported outcomes.
Autologous fat grafting after breast conserving surgery: Breast imaging changes and patient-reported outcome
