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 was to compare the outcomes of 2 commercially available AFG processing devices. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent AFG with dual-filter (Puregraft) or single-filter (Revolve) 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 group. Results: Matching was successful in achieving a similar distribution of baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. The mean number of AFG sessions was comparable between the 2 groups (P = 0.37) with a similar median total volume (Puregraft, 159 mL vs Revolve, 130 mL; P = 0.23). Complication rates were similar between the 2 devices (Puregraft, 26%; Revolve, 18%; P = 0.47). Patients with at least 1 complication had higher overall AFG volume (median, 200 mL vs 130 mL; P = 0.03) and number of sessions (mean, 2.4 vs 1.8, P = 0.009) compared with those without any postoperative complication. Conclusions: Overall complication rates were comparable between 2 commonly used, commercially available AFG processing systems, and therefore the choice of which to use should be based on surgeon preference. Future studies are underway to decipher whether either system offers superior graft retention, cosmetic, or patient-reported outcomes.
ASJC Scopus subject areas