ABSTRACT
Autologous fat transfer-also referred to as fat grafting-has been reported to provide beneficial effects to overlying scar and skin. Despite procedural frequency, there is a paucity of high-level evidence guiding the surgeon in technique, patient selection, and efficacy. METHODS: A multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, internally placebo-controlled trial was performed with an aim to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the impact of autologous fat transfer on the quality of overlying scar tissue. Fat-grafted scars were evaluated and compared with paired, saline-injected "control" scars. Subjective and objective metrics were evaluated in treated sites for 12 months after treatment. RESULTS: Blinded qualitative results demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in scar quality over time in fat-grafted scars. However, these improvements were not found to be statistically different from changes noted in scars treated with saline. In addition, objective metrics did not statistically differ between saline-injected and autologous fat-grafted scars. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that autologous fat grafting can improve the qualitative profile of a scar from both the patient and observer perspectives. However, there was no difference in improvement when compared with scars that were treated with saline in a randomized and blinded fashion. These results demonstrate that any improvements in scar quality related to fat grafting are also achieved using saline and suggest that mechanisms other than cell activity may be at play. Additional randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trials are required to either corroborate or contest the putative beneficial effect(s) of adipose tissue on scar remodeling.
ABSTRACT
Vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) is the most advanced reconstructive technique available to patients who suffer devastating burns to the limbs or face. However, VCA requires donor-recipient matching. Burn patients have been reported to experience sensitization, or the development of anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies, during resuscitation and wound coverage, potentially precluding them from future VCA. This study sought to investigate the contributions of both blood and allograft to sensitization in burn patients. Four groups were compared: burn patients who received blood products and allograft (group 1), burn patients who received blood products only (group 2), trauma patients who received blood products only (group 3), and healthy volunteer controls (group 4). The average calculated panel-reactive antibody (indicating sensitization) was higher in group 1 compared to group 4 (P = .035). Additionally, the incidence of severe sensitization was higher in group 1 relative to the other groups (P = .049). When comparing groups of patients who had no sensitization, mild sensitization, moderate sensitization, and severe sensitization, there were no significant differences in age, sex, blood products received, total body surface area burned, or allograft used between groups, though severely sensitized patients tended to have greater total body surface area involvement and received more units of packed red blood cells and allograft (P = .079, P = .196, and P = .072, respectively). We therefore conclude that while burn patients who received allograft and blood demonstrated a higher incidence of anti-human leukocyte antigen sensitization relative to healthy controls, this difference cannot solely be attributed to either allograft use or transfusion.
