Loading…

Fat graft for reducing pain in chronic wounds

Background Chronic wounds are one of the most important challenge for regenerative surgery. Plastic surgeon can use fat graft to increase wound healing because its growth factors can enhance tissue regeneration. In a recent study, the authors evaluated a reduction of pain in a cohort of patients sub...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Wound repair and regeneration 2020-11, Vol.28 (6), p.780-788
Main Authors: Cuomo, Roberto, Giardino, Francesco R., Nisi, Giuseppe, Han, Jingjian, Diluiso, Giuseppe, Tresoldi, Marco M., Pieretti, Gorizio, Brandi, Cesare, Grimaldi, Luca
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Chronic wounds are one of the most important challenge for regenerative surgery. Plastic surgeon can use fat graft to increase wound healing because its growth factors can enhance tissue regeneration. In a recent study, the authors evaluated a reduction of pain in a cohort of patients submitted to breast reconstruction with breast implant and lipofilling, putting into evidence that growth factors in fat graft can reduce post‐surgical pain. The aim of this work is to evaluate ultra‐filtered fat graft potential in reducing pain in chronic wounds. Patients and Methods Fifty new patients with chronic wounds of different etiology were recruited for this study and divided into two groups: A, treatment and B, control. Twenty‐five patients per group. Negative pressure therapy dressing was applied after surgical debridement. Three days later patients in group A received ultrafiltered fat graft. Pain was evaluated with preoperative Visual Analogic Scale, repeated twice a day for 14 days and finally 21 days from procedures. Results In group A (treated patients), pain was lower. These data were confirmed even after 7 days. The overall statistical analysis of the average of all values (SD 1.72) confirmed that the differences were significant at the 95% with the Chi‐square test and analysis of variance (P value 
ISSN:1067-1927
1524-475X
DOI:10.1111/wrr.12846