A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Contralateral Study of Tissue Liquefaction Liposuction vs Suction-Assisted Liposuction.

BACKGROUND: Tissue liquefaction liposuction (TLL) deploys a novel energy source utilizing a stream of warmed, low-pressurized, and pulsed saline to extract fat tissue. OBJECTIVES: Compare TLL to suction-assisted liposuction (SAL) to determine which device is more efficient for surgeons and provides better recovery for patients. METHODS: Thirty-one adult female patients were followed prospectively in a contralateral study design comparing differences in bruising, swelling, tenderness, and incision appearance ratings between TLL and SAL procedures. Surgical efficiency and appearance of the lipoaspirate were also compared. RESULTS: All 31 patients successfully completed the study. For TLL and SAL procedures, the average volumes of infusion (1.242 vs 1.276 L) and aspirated supernatant fat (704 vs 649 mL) were statistically similar. TLL median fat extraction rate was faster than SAL (35.6 vs 25 mL/min; P < 0.0001), and stroke rate was reduced in TLL vs SAL procedures (48 vs 120 strokes/min; P < 0.0001), and both were statistically significant. The mean total scores for bruising, swelling, treatment site tenderness, and incision appearance were lower, indicating improved patient recovery on the TLL side. CONCLUSIONS: TLL and SAL techniques produced comparable volume of fat aspirate. TLL demonstrated a 42% faster fat extraction rate and a 68% reduction in arm movements needed to complete the procedure compared to SAL, both of these differences are statistically significant. The TLL side was noted to have reduced bruising and swelling and improved incision site appearance with less tenderness compared to the SAL side.

Tissue Liquefaction Liposuction for Body Contouring and Autologous Fat Transfer: A Retrospective Review Over 3 Years.

Objective: Tissue liquefaction lipoplasty is a novel, low-energy method cleared for use in aesthetic body contouring and autologous fat transfer. This is a retrospective review of the clinical effectiveness and safety of a liquefaction lipoplasty system for liposuction and autologous fat transfer. Methods: A retrospective review was done evaluating all liquefaction lipoplasty procedures with or without autologous fat transfer performed by a single surgeon (March 2013 to June 2016). Patient demographics, operative details, and any complications were tabulated from patient charts. A typical case reported is presented with pre-/postoperative photographs. Results: Two hundred fifty-five consecutive liquefaction lipoplasty procedures were performed over 39 months. The average lipoaspirate volume was 1208 ± 991 mL and the average fat graft volume was 322 ± 277 mL. The overall complication rate was 9 of 255 (3.52%). There were 2 episodes of seroma (0.78%) that were aspirated and 2 episodes of cellulitis (0.78%) that responded to oral antibiotics. In the autologous fat transfer cohort, there were 5 of 103 (4.85%) cases of mild to moderate fat necrosis, with 1 patient requiring return to the operating room for removal of an oil cyst. No revisions of donor sites were required. Conclusions: Liquefaction lipoplasty appears safe for liposuction and autologous fat transfer, with a complication profile that is comparable with other widely used forms of suction-assisted liposuction. The liquefaction lipoplasty technology also provides potential time savings in the operating room that can minimize surgeon fatigue when harvesting large volumes of high-quality fat. Liquefaction lipoplasty appears to have advantages for both the patient and the surgeon, and further studies are underway.