Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 436

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Current State of Fat Grafting: A Review of Harvesting, Processing, and Injection Techniques

Open access
Strong, Amy L., Cederna, Paul S., Rubin, J. Peter, Coleman, Sydney R., Levi, Benjamin·2015·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interest in and acceptance of autologous fat grafting for use in contour abnormalities, breast reconstruction, and cosmetic procedures have increased. However, there are many procedural variations that alter the effectiveness of the procedure and may account for the unpredictable resorption rates observed. METHODS: The authors highlighted studies investigating the effects of harvesting procedures, processing techniques, and reinjection methods on the survival of fat grafts. This review focused on the impact different techniques have on outcomes observed in the following: in vitro analyses, in vivo animal experiments, and human studies. RESULTS: This systemic review revealed the current state of the literature. There was no significant difference in the outcomes of grafted fat obtained from different donor sites, different donor-site preparations, harvest technique, fat harvesting cannula size, or centrifugation speed, when tumescent solution was used. Gauze rolling was found to enhance the volume of grafted fat, and no significant difference in retention was observed following centrifugation, filtration, or sedimentation in animal experiments. In contrast, clinical studies in patients found more favorable outcomes with fat processed by centrifugation compared with sedimentation. In addition, higher retention was observed with slower reinjection speed and when introduced into less mobile areas. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a substantial increase in research interest to identify methodologies for optimizing fat graft survival. Despite some differences in harvest and implantation technique in the laboratory, these findings have not translated into a universal protocol for fat grafting. Therefore, additional human studies are necessary to aid in the development of a universal protocol for clinical practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/prs.0000000000001590

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 38 references

Metadata

Authors
Strong, A. L., Cederna, P. S., Rubin, J. P., Coleman, S. R., & Levi, B.
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2015-10
Volume
136
Issue
4
Pages
897-912
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W617702064
Cited by
436
References
38
FWCI
23.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Current State of Fat Grafting: A Review of Harvesting, Processing, and Injection Techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/prs.0000000000001590
The paper
Strong, A. L., Cederna, P. S., Rubin, J. P., Coleman, S. R., & Levi, B. (2015). The Current State of Fat Grafting: A Review of Harvesting, Processing, and Injection Techniques. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001590

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.