Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology logoLink to Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
. 2021 Sep 1;6(5):1024–1030. doi: 10.1002/lio2.649

Autologous fat grafting in the face and neck: Multinational trends and knowledge of the safety, applications, and indications considering oncologic risk potential

Lukas S Fiedler 1,✉, Daniel B Saleh 2, Alicia Mukrowsky 3
PMCID: PMC8513435  PMID: 34667845

Abstract

Background

Autologous fat grafting (AFG) is evolving in both aesthetic and reconstructive applications, since the body of evidence for its use has expanded. The earliest controversies were evident in lipofilling for oncological breast reconstruction, and to this day, some countries do not allow it for fear of inducing tumourigenesis in an oncologically ablated field.

Methods

We sought to review contemporary harvesting and processing techniques for AFG in the craniofacial region, therefore distributed a survey to evaluate the clinical impact of oncological risk across four European countries.

Results

We found no significant geographical differences between the German‐speaking and the English groups concerning their harvesting and processing technique. Half of our respondents discuss the possibility of pro‐oncologic behavior of AFG.

Conclusion

AFG harvesting and processing techniques do not considerably vary by geography. Further studies should evaluate oncologic risk potential of AFG in head and neck tumor sites, especially because there is no excellent article regarding this phenomenon.

Level of Evidence: V

Keywords: face, fat, grafting, head and neck cancer, oncologic risk with fat grafting, oncological safety

1. INTRODUCTION

Autologous fat grafting (AFG) is used both in aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. Neuber described fat transfer in retractile scarring and published successful outcomes. 1 In recent decades, this technique has been used increasingly since the development of modern liposuction techniques in the 1980s by Illouz. 2 , 3 The technique of harvesting and processing, expanded applications and fat transfer is now commonly used in the head/face and neck. 4 , 5 Coleman provided a comprehensive description of techniques in the 1990s, and in recent years the scientific basis of the regenerative effects of fat grafts is progressing. 6 , 7

Adipose tissue has notable plasticity and has endocrine function. 8 A lipoaspirate of fat tissue contains an aqueous fraction, the stromal vascular fraction (SVF), which is a combination of preadipocytes, endothelial precursor cells, endothelial cells, macrophages, smooth muscle cells, lymphocytes, pericytes, and adipose‐derived stem cells (ASCs). 9 The latter have the potential to differentiate into numerous cell lines comparable with mesenchymal stem cells. 9 , 10 ASCs are involved in biologic pathways of inflammation and tumor environment. 7 ASCs have been ascertained to promote angiogenesis and further showed elevated pro‐oncologic behavior in xenografts. 10 , 11 The applications also have expanded beyond physical “contouring and space‐filling” to regenerative applications that address radiation injury, abnormal scarring, improving aged skin, and managing varieties of skin injury such as burns. 2 , 9 , 12

The worldwide incidence of head and neck cancer (HNC) is more than 550 000 cases with around 300 000 annual deaths. About 90% of all head and neck cancers are squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). HNSCC is the sixth leading cancer by incidence worldwide. 13 , 14 About one third of these patients present with low stage disease (T1‐2, N0), therefore radiation or surgery protocols are available for treatment. Higher stage disease in HNC requires postoperative chemoradiotherapy 13 resulting in treatment sequelae like a cosmetic burden, 15 trismus, radiotherapy‐induced neck fibrosis, 16 and radiodermatitis, further skin irregularities, and lymphedema. 17 AFG can address these complications after successful treatment. The safety of AFG is largely accepted, but attitudes differ where and the anatomical region to be treated has previously been ablated for cancer. 8

Unlike breast surgery, it is not clear what current attitudes and trends are in facial fat grafting in the postcancer treatment patient, for example, postradiation injury, contour defect, or chronic neck lymphedema. We aimed to try ascertaining attitudes in this respect and whether these attitudes are reflected in the evidence base for these procedures. We recognize there are no English or German published guidance, health care system based or otherwise, to guide the treating teams.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Autologous fat grafting

2.1.1. Applications and Indications of autologous fat grafting

Fat grafting has a number of monikers and this article will use the term AFG. Applications of AFG are broad and treatable regions are various. A variety of clinical problems have been treated using fat, including postoncological contour defects, scar therapy, connective tissue disease, postradiation skin injury, chronic lymphoedema, facial and body asymmetries of the soft tissues and in complex/simple burns. 12 , 18 Ultrastructural analysis of radio‐damaged tissue showed a significant reduction of the capillary bed, where AFG has shown to enhance tissue hydration, the induction of blood vessel formation and increased local regeneration of damaged tissue. 19 Furthermore, AFG can be of use in the treatment of the microangiopathic patient. 19 , 20 AFG, therefore, is beneficial for patients with volume loss due to the natural process of ageing, disease, trauma, congenital defects and it improves skin quality, tissue quality, and scars and further gives enlarged volume in the treated region. 21

In HNC, squamous cell carcinoma HNSCC is the most common and frequently requires surgical ablation plus radiotherapy. This oncologic treatment can often lead to major functional impairment, lymphoedema, and radiation‐induced soft tissue changes inducing neck lymphedema and radiation injury and a restriction of function, and in facial cancer ablation, contour defects. 22 , 23

Fat grafting first gathered prominence in the aesthetic area, 24 and subsequent study showed it had a favorable complication profile compared to synthetic filler materials. 25 , 26

However, there remains a weak consensus on the optimal conditions of fat aspiration, processing, and injection that confers a greater “take” in aesthetic applications. 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 Further, the amount of infiltrated fat in the face is not yet standardized. 24 Moreover, due to the chronicity of radiation injury in HNC treatment, the optimal time of treatment is not clear, and what is the exact change in the irradiated skin microenvironment. 2 , 30

2.1.2. Fat tissue, harvesting techniques, and processing of fat graft

Adipose tissue is remarkably complex and has a profound role in nutrient homeostasis and is, due to adipose‐derived serum factors like adipsin, TNF‐α and leptin seen as a separate endocrine organ. 31 Fat tissue has a necessary role in thermogenesis and insulation and protects important organs like the eyes mechanically. 8 Fat tissue consists of a high quantity of cell types. Aspirated fat contains an aqueous fraction, the stromal vascular fraction (SVF). 9 SVF contains a number of regenerative cells, in high numbers of ASCs, which can differentiate into adipocytes, fibroblasts, neurons, and muscles. 8 , 9 Zuk et al found regenerative and stem cells in the SVF of fat. 32 These SVF cells have been shown to have regenerative effects, like angiogenesis and reduction of inflammation in facial aesthetics. There are reports on regenerative effects on elastin and collagen fibers and an elevation of capillary density. 33

Every step in the process of AFG from the choice of the donor site, donor site preparation, to harvesting over processing to injection has the potential to influence graft outcome and volume retention. 29 Tuin et al analyzed 35 studies to identify the optimal processing technique. Their outcome was adipocyte viability, ASC survival and growth factors in vitro, the volume of the graft in animal studies and volume retention in human studies. They discovered no superior processing technique could be identified based on clinical outcome. 34 Lee et al found no differences in histology and weight with high vs low aspiration pressure in lipoaspirates injected in nude mice. Shear stress had a high impact on graft viability, therefore slowly injected fat grafts outperformed injection with high shear stress. 35

2.1.3. Risks and oncologic potential of AFG

Fat grafting does carry a risk of intraluminal injection causing necrosis and infarct of the end organ tissue, which in the head and neck can be devastating and there are numerous reports of blindness, facial skin loss, fat embolic syndrome, and cerebral infarct. 36 , 37 , 38 Although AFG is used as a successful technique for aesthetic and reconstructive approaches, the oncologic safety stays unclear and is discussed controversially in literature. 6 , 10 , 39 Due to oncologic risk potential of AFG in head and neck, Karmali et al who solely addressed this phenomenon as a sub topic, found no evidence for an association with cancer recurrence. 40

The evidence overall is lacking, and there is no specific research respectively addressing the oncologic risk profile of AFG in the head, face, and neck. Some publications concentrated on the general complications of AFG in the head, face, and neck, and stated a low rate of minor complications. 5 , 41 , 42 Since there is no specifically addressed interest in oncologic potential of AFG in head and neck, it is necessary to orientate toward given evidence. ASCs have been shown to, in vitro, harbor pro‐oncological and regenerative influences. 39 However, fat grafting and ASCs have not been shown to drive cancer growth in clinical reality, several studies with big cohorts showed no evidence for an elevation in oncological risk in AFG. 43 , 44 , 45 Donnenberg et al suggested that ASCs support growth in active breast cancer cells. Silva et al found no evidence for clinically relevant elevations in tumor size, proliferation, histologic grade, or metastasis in AFG breast reconstruction in an animal model. 46 To the contrary, Mazur et al found no indication for a higher breast cancer risk in ASCs augmented fat in postcancer mastectomy and radiation patients. 47

Given the evidence, there seems to be a gap between in vivo and clinical studies. Whereas Yu, Muehlberg and Karnoub et al published rapidly growing tumor cell lines in the cultural combination with murine ASCs, clinical studies seem to show no evidence of cancer growth in AFG treated regions. 39 , 48 , 49 , 50

2.2. AFG Survey

We conducted a survey to ascertain if there are differences in surgical cultural beliefs toward the safety of fat grafting in patients treated for head, neck, and facial cancer. A German online survey‐softwaretool ©soscisurvey.de 51 was used and distributed by email, and via national associations, to head and neck surgeons working in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and UK in the field of Plastic surgery, maxillofacial surgery and Otorhinolaryngology. The participants had the option to take the survey in German or English. Questions centered around the applications, indications, safety, and their personal preferences for AFG (Table 1). We chiefly aimed to determine if a wider European attitude to AFG in the head and neck mirrored that in breast reconstructive practices post cancer fat grafting.

TABLE 1.

Autologous fat grafting survey questionnaire ©Soscisurvey.de, a free tool for online surveys

Do you have experience with autologous fat grafting of the head/neck and face?

(A) Yes

(B) No
How many of these procedures do you perform annually?

(A) under 10

(B) 10‐50

(C) 50 and more
Do you use fat grafting for Aesthetic facial contouring?

(A) Yes

(B) No
Do you use fat grafting for Benign acquired pathology such as HIV lipodystrophy, craniofacial anomalies, facial differences, or scar treatment?

(A) Yes

(B) No
Do you use fat grafting for post cancer facial contouring, post cancer radiation treatment for facial/neck function?

(A) Yes

(B) No

In your practice, please rank the main indications for fat grafting 1 , 2 , 3 ?

(A) Aesthetic facial contouring

(B) Benign acquired pathology such as HIV lipodystrophy, craniofacial anomalies, facial differences, scar treatment

(C) Post cancer facial contouring, post cancer radiation treatment for facial/neck function?
What technique do you typically use to harvest your fat?

(A) vacuum aspiration as low negative pressure aspiration

(B) Syringe aspiration: (a) Fine needle <0.7 mm (b) Cannula >1 mm; (c) surgical excision
How do you process the fat before you infiltrate it?

(A) Centrifuge

(B) Manual (free text to describe)
Do you discuss with patients the theory of adipose derived stem cells potentiating neoplasia in a patient treated for facial, head, and neck cancer?

(A) Yes

(B) No
Do you see an elevation of cancer risk as a possible adverse effect of autologous fat grafting in treated cancer patients?

(A) Yes

(B) No
Have you ever experienced a cancer recurrence or a newly developed cancer in a facial region, where autologous fat has been injected before?

(A) Yes

(B) No
Are you aware of any studies or reports of cancer recurrence following fat grafting?

(A) Yes

(B) No
Open in a new tab

3. RESULTS

In our survey, there were 24 German and 21 English‐speaking respondents.

Most of our responses came from Plastic and reconstructive surgeons [43/45; 95.5%] (see Figure 1), two Otorhinolaryngologists participated in and completed our questionnaire.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Respondents language and specialty

Nearly all of the participants declared experience with autologous fat grafting [42/45; 93.6%] whereas only three colleagues [3/45; 6.6%] had no experience with fat grafting. As shown in Figures 2, 38% [17/45; 37.7%] of the responders stated an AFG‐use under 10 times a year, nearly half [21/45; 46.6%] stated the usage of 10 to 50 times per year and 14% [6/45; 13.3%] were frequent users of fat grafting (>50/year).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Annually performed autologous fat grafting

We observed common usage for aesthetic in 84% of respondents [38/45; 84.4%]. Further, a representative part of the participating colleagues [28/36; 62.2%] uses AFG for benign acquired pathologies such as HIV lipodystrophy, craniofacial anomalies, facial asymmetries, or scar treatment. Of particular interest, nearly two‐thirds of our sample [28/36; 62.2%] do use AFG for postcancer facial contouring or radiation‐induced fibrosis treatment for facial/neck function.

As presented in Figure 3, we asked how the participating surgeons rank the indications for AFG in their practice. Based on 37 valid answers in the survey, 60% deemed “aesthetic facial contouring” as the most important AFG application [22/37; 59.6%], a further 25% [9/37; 24.3%] ranked “postcancer facial contouring, postcancer radiation treatment for facial/neck function” their most common indication.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Ranks for applications of autologous fat grafting

Concerning harvest technique (see Figure 4), the majority use Syringe aspiration with a fine needle/cannula 1 mm or greater [24/45; 53%], by the use of Vacuum aspiration with low pressure [17/45; 37,7%]. A few surgeons favor syringe aspiration with fine needle with a lower diameter than 0.7 mm [4/45; 9%]. Interestingly, nobody of our survey cohort works with surgical excision in AFG applications [0/45; 0%].

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Autologous fat grafting harvesting techniques

Nearly half of our colleagues process their harvested tissue by centrifugation [20/43; 46.5%], and the remainder (54%) had variable practices (see Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Autologous fat grafting processing techniques (free text)

Free answers of processing technique n %‐absolute
Sedimentation and passive separation by gravity 6 16.2%
PureGraft 3 8.1%
Decant liquid parts‐no centrifuge 2 5.4%
Separation of fat and liquid parts in the syringe 2 5.4%
mesh washing 2 8.1%
Drainage of sediment and nanofat preparation 1 2.7%
Strain and irrigate 1 2.7%
Open in a new tab

As demonstrated in Figure 5, nearly half of our survey participants [20/42; 47.6%] do not discuss the scientific conjecture around possible oncological stimulation and neoplastic potentiation by ASCs, in the fat graft matrix. This correlates with the fact that most respondents do not believe there is an elevated cancer risk with fat grafting in anatomical locations where cancer has been resected, but seemingly a proportion of these clinicians do not even consider it significant enough to discuss the controversies with patients.

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Results on elevated pro‐oncologic risk in autologous fat grafting (AFG)

Similarly, almost all respondents reported they had not observed new tumor recurrence in the fat grafted bed.

4. DISCUSSION

Our survey was conducted in four countries because there are no English or German published guidance on AFG in the head and neck to guide the treating teams. Most of our responses came from Plastic surgeons (95.5%), only two Otorhinolaryngologists completed our questionnaire. This response mismatch does not correlate with the count of active surgeons in the fields. There are 1328 active colleagues in Plastic surgery listed in UK and 1498 in Germany, UK counts 1916 ENT‐surgeons, whereas Germany lists 2981 active colleagues in ENT. 52 , 53 , 54 Reasonably, we assume a broader use of AFG in Plastic surgery.

Most colleagues who participated in our survey (46.6%) state a 10 to 50 times a year use of AFG and 14% stated an AFG‐use of more than 50 times a year. The frequency of usage of AFG is not yet addressed in the literature. Where the indications have expanded beyond physical “contouring and space‐filling” to regenerative applications, we expect an increase of frequency of this application in use soon. 2 , 9 , 12

Although aesthetic applications of fat grafting in the head and neck seem to be more prominent (84% of respondents), a significant body of our survey respondents use autologous fat in the postcancer treatment setting (62%). In our opinion, this correlates with the fact, that in recent decades AFG is being used increasingly. Responsible for that is the development of modern liposuction techniques in the 1980s by Illouz, 2 , 3 further Coleman provided a comprehensive description of techniques in the 1990s. 6 , 7 While fat grafting first gathered prominence in the aesthetic area, 24 and a subsequent study showed it had a favorable complication profile compared to synthetic filler materials, 25 , 26 in recent years the scientific basis of the regenerative effects of fat grafting is progressing. 6 , 7

HNC represents 3 % of all malignant neoplasms, HNSCC is responsible for 90% of these cases. 14 The resulting impairments of craniofacial cancer therapy, surgical reconstruction, and radiotherapy make AFG a very promising and useful tool to deal with scars, irregularities, and radiodermatitis and chronic radiation‐induced fibrosis. 8

Due to harvesting and processing in AFG, the majority use syringe aspiration with a fine needle/cannula 1 mm or greater (53%), and Vacuum aspiration with low pressure (34%). This correlates with a necessary low negative pressure level in aspiration and lower shear stress for the tissue. The perception seems to be, the higher the negative pressure level of liposuction, the higher the level of shear stress to the adipose tissue, reducing fat graft survival. 6 , 29 , 55

Nearly half of our colleagues process their harvested tissue by centrifugation (46.5%), and the remainder (54%) had variable practices like sedimentation (16%) or pure graft (8%). Only two colleagues use mesh‐washing techniques. Tuin et al discovered no superior processing technique could be identified based on clinical outcome. 34 The lower count of used washing techniques, in our opinion, may be because mesh‐washing techniques are labor intensive and are linked with a higher loss of graft material in the process, compared to the easy to use and fast centrifugation.

Nearly half of our survey participants do not discuss elevated cancer risk. On the other hand, only 31% stated knowledge of studies dealing with cancer recurrence following AFG. Moreover, most respondents have never confidently experienced cancer recurrence or newly developed cancer in a previously ablated region, following AFG in head and neck.

The evidence overall is lacking, and there is no specific research respectively addressing the oncologic risk profile of AFG in the head, face, and neck. Due to oncologic risk potential of AFG in head and neck, Karmali et al who solely addressed this phenomenon as a sub topic, found no evidence for an association with cancer recurrence. 40 Since there is no specifically addressed interest in oncologic potential of AFG in head and neck, it is necessary to orientate toward given evidence.

In several mastectomy studies, fat grafting and ASCs have not been shown to drive cancer growth in clinical reality, several studies with big cohorts showed no evidence for an elevation in oncological risk in AFG. 43 , 44 , 45 Further, studies found no significant evidence for clinically relevant elevations in tumor size, proliferation, histologic grade, or metastasis in AFG breast reconstruction. Most of the current studies dealing with the oncologic risk of AFG refer to breast cancer, further longitudinal shared data sets would be desirable to evaluate a possible pro‐oncologic behavior of AFG in the face, head, and neck.

In conclusion, AFG applications, indications, harvesting, and processing techniques do not considerably vary by geography given our data.

And currently, there are no evidence‐based studies which would authorize a valid recommendation due to pro‐oncological risk of AFG in treated HNC tumor sites. There is a good case to suspect a different behavior of ASCs in breast cancer cells vs HNSCC. Perhaps, we should not consider discussing this complex area of oncogenesis with patients as there is no elevated risk from what we know. However, the bulk of data is for breast carcinoma, which is a different disease to HNSCC, and different tumors could conceivably interact in a different way to ASCs.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Lukas Fiedler: writing, survey design. GER, dispatch GER and analysis GER/EN, revision. Daniel B Saleh: survey design EN, dispatch UK, editing. Alicia Mukrowsky: writing, selection of publications.

Fiedler LS, Saleh DB, Mukrowsky A. Autologous fat grafting in the face and neck: Multinational trends and knowledge of the safety, applications, and indications considering oncologic risk potential. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology. 2021;6(5):1024‐1030. doi: 10.1002/lio2.649

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • 1. Neuber F. Fettransplantation. Chir Kongr Verhandl Dsch Gesellch Chir. 1893;22:66. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Simonacci F, Bertozzi N, Grieco MP, Grignaffini E, Raposio E. Procedure, applications, and outcomes of autologous fat grafting. Annals Med Surg (2012). 2017;20:49–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Gornitsky J, Viezel‐Mathieu A, Alnaif N, Azzi AJ, Gilardino MS. A systematic review of the effectiveness and complications of fat grafting in the facial region. JPRAS Open. 2019;19:87‐97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Baum SH, Mohr C. Autologous dermis‐fat grafts in head and neck patients: indications and evaluation in reconstructive surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018;46(10):1834‐1842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Krastev TK, Beugels J, Hommes J, Piatkowski A, Mathijssen I, van der Hulst R. Efficacy and safety of autologous fat transfer in facial reconstructive surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2018;20(5):351‐360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Zielins ER, Brett EA, Longaker MT, Wan DC. Autologous fat grafting: the science behind the surgery. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36(4):488‐496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Bertheuil N, Chaput B, Ménard C, et al. Adipose mesenchymal stromal cells: definition, immunomodulatory properties, mechanical isolation and interest for plastic surgery. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2019;64(1):1‐10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Drochioi CI, Sulea D, Timofte D, Mocanu V, Popescu E, Costan VV. Autologous fat grafting for craniofacial reconstruction in oncologic patients. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania). 2019;55(10):655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Bora P, Majumdar AS. Adipose tissue‐derived stromal vascular fraction in regenerative medicine: a brief review on biology and translation. Stem Cell Res Therapy. 2017;8(1):145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Freese KE, Kokai L, Edwards RP, et al. Adipose‐derived stems cells and their role in human cancer development, growth, progression, and metastasis: a systematic review. Cancer Res. 2015;75(7):1161‐1168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Rowan BG, Lacayo EA, Sheng M, et al. Human adipose tissue‐derived stromal/stem cells promote migration and early metastasis of head and neck cancer xenografts. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36(1):93‐104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Arno A, Smith AH, Blit PH, Shehab MA, Gauglitz GG, Jeschke MG. Stem cell therapy: a new treatment for burns? Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland). 2011;4(10):1355‐1380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Control UfIC . Head and Neck Cancer. In: Organisation WH, ed; 2014.
  • 14. Rigoni L, Bruhn RF, De Cicco R, Kanda JL, Matos LL. Quality of life impairment in patients with head and neck cancer and their caregivers: a comparative study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;82(6):680‐686. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Bonadies A, Bertozzi E, Cristiani R, Govoni FA, Migliano E. Electrochemotherapy in skin malignancies of head and neck cancer patients: clinical efficacy and aesthetic benefits. Acta Derm Venereol. 2019;99(13):1246‐1252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Baldoman D, Vandenbrink R. Physical therapy challenges in head and neck cancer. Cancer Treat Res. 2018;174:209‐223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Tyker A, Franco J, Massa ST, Desai SC, Walen SG. Treatment for lymphedema following head and neck cancer therapy: a systematic review. Am J Otolaryngol. 2019;40(5):761‐769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Garza RM, Paik KJ, Chung MT, et al. Studies in fat grafting: part III. Fat grafting irradiated tissue—improved skin quality and decreased fat graft retention. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(2):249‐257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Rigotti G, Marchi A, Galiè M, et al. Clinical treatment of radiotherapy tissue damage by lipoaspirate transplant: a healing process mediated by adipose‐derived adult stem cells. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(5):1409‐1422. discussion 23‐4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Bernier J, Bonner J, Vermorken JB, et al. Consensus guidelines for the management of radiation dermatitis and coexisting acne‐like rash in patients receiving radiotherapy plus EGFR inhibitors for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Annals Oncol. 2008;19(1):142‐149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Simonacci F, Bertozzi N, Grieco MP, Raposio E. From liposuction to adipose‐derived stem cells: indications and technique. Acta Bio‐Med: Atenei Parmensis. 2019;90(2):197‐208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Parsons JT, Mendenhall WM, Stringer SP, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx: surgery, radiation therapy, or both. Cancer. 2002;94(11):2967‐2980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Ringash J. Survivorship and quality of life in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(29):3322‐3327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Shue S, Kurlander DE, Guyuron B. Fat injection: a systematic review of injection volumes by facial subunit. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42(5):1261‐1270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Agrawal KS, Bachhav M, Naik CS, Tanwar H, Sankhe SS. Autologous fat transfer for esthetic contouring of face in posttraumatic nonfunctional maxillofacial deformities. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2016;9(2):113‐120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Groen JW, Krastev TK, Hommes J, Wilschut JA, Ritt M, van der Hulst R. Autologous fat transfer for facial rejuvenation: a systematic review on technique, efficacy, and satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(12):e1606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Gamboa GM, Ross WA. Autologous fat transfer in aesthetic facial recontouring. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70(5):513‐516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Kurial P. Lipomodeling ‐ autologous fat transfer in aesthetic surgery. Cas Lek Cesk. 2018;157(6):289‐292. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Strong AL, Cederna PS, Rubin JP, Coleman SR, Levi B. The current state of fat grafting: a review of harvesting, processing, and injection techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(4):897‐912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Klinger M, Caviggioli F, Klinger FM, et al. Autologous fat graft in scar treatment. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(5):1610‐1615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Rosen ED, Spiegelman BM. What we talk about when we talk about fat. Cell. 2014;156(1–2):20‐44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Zuk PA, Zhu M, Mizuno H, et al. Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: implications for cell‐based therapies. Tissue Eng. 2001;7(2):211‐228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Cohen SR, Hewett S, Ross L, et al. Regenerative cells for facial surgery: biofilling and biocontouring. Aesthetic Surg J. 2017;37(suppl 3):S16‐s32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Tuin AJ, Domerchie PN, Schepers RH, et al. What is the current optimal fat grafting processing technique? A systematic review. J Cranio‐Maxillo‐Facial Surg. 2016;44(1):45‐55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Lee JH, Kirkham JC, McCormack MC, Nicholls AM, Randolph MA, Austen WG Jr. The effect of pressure and shear on autologous fat grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):1125‐1136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Rai S, Marsland AM, Madan V. Facial fat necrosis following autologous fat transfer and its management. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2014;7(3):173‐175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Roshandel D, Soheilian M, Pakravan M, Aghayan S, Peyman GA. Middle cerebral artery, ophthalmic artery, and multibranch retinal vessel occlusion after cosmetic autologous fat transfer to forehead. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2015;46(5):593‐596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Shen X, Li Q, Zhang H. Massive cerebral infarction following facial fat injection. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016;40(5):801‐805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Donnenberg VS, Zimmerlin L, Rubin JP, Donnenberg AD. Regenerative therapy after cancer: what are the risks? Tissue engineering part B. Reviews. 2010;16(6):567‐575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Karmali RJ, Hanson SE, Nguyen AT, Skoracki RJ, Hanasono MM. Outcomes following autologous fat grafting for oncologic head and neck reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(3):771‐780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Hammond SE, Samuels S, Thaller S. Filling in the details: a review of lipofilling of radiated tissues in the head and neck. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(3):667‐671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Bellini E, Grieco MP, Raposio E. The science behind autologous fat grafting. Annals Med Surg. 2012;24:65‐73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Simorre M, Chaput B, Voglimacci Stephanopoli M, et al. Lipofilling in breast reconstruction: is there any population with higher risk of local recurrence? Literature systematic review. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2015;43(4):309‐318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Fraser JK, Hedrick MH, Cohen SR. Oncologic risks of autologous fat grafting to the breast. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(1):68‐75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Calabrese C, Kothari A, Badylak S, et al. Oncological safety of stromal vascular fraction enriched fat grafting in two‐stage breast reconstruction after nipple sparing mastectomy: long‐term results of a prospective study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018;22(15):4768‐4777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Silva MMA, Kokai LE, Donnenberg VS, et al. Oncologic safety of fat grafting for autologous breast reconstruction in an animal model of residual breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(1):103‐112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Mazur S, Zolocinska A, Siennicka K, Janik‐Kosacka K, Chrapusta A, Pojda Z. Safety of adipose‐derived cell (stromal vascular fraction ‐ SVF) augmentation for surgical breast reconstruction in cancer patients. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2018;27(8):1085‐1090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Karnoub AE, Dash AB, Vo AP, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells within tumour stroma promote breast cancer metastasis. Nature. 2007;449(7162):557‐563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Yu JM, Jun ES, Bae YC, Jung JS. Mesenchymal stem cells derived from human adipose tissues favor tumor cell growth in vivo. Stem Cells Dev. 2008;17(3):463‐473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Muehlberg FL, Song YH, Krohn A, et al. Tissue‐resident stem cells promote breast cancer growth and metastasis. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30(4):589‐597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. GmbH SS. www.soscisurvey.de.
  • 52. DGPRAEC. Statistik 2011. https://www.dgpraec.de/presse/statistik/.
  • 53. Workforce [Internet]. NHS. 2020. https://digital.nhs.uk/data‐and‐information/publications/statistical/nhs‐workforce‐statistics/september‐2020.
  • 54. Deutschland B. Berufsstatistik; 2018.
  • 55. Fontes T, Brandao I, Negrao R, Martins MJ, Monteiro R. Autologous fat grafting: harvesting techniques. Annals Med Surg. 2012;36:212‐218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES