Next Article in Journal
Advances in Food Allergy Immunotherapy: Current Strategies and Role of Antibodies Isotypes
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Omics Perspectives on Testicular Aging: Unraveling Germline Dysregulation, Niche Dysfunction, and Epigenetic Remodeling
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cells
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/cells14120898
cells-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Histology and Immunohistochemistry of Adipose Tissue: A Scoping Review on Staining Methods and Their Informative Value

by
Tom Schimanski
1,†,
Rafael Loucas
1,2,*,†,
Marios Loucas
3,
Oliver Felthaus
1,
Vanessa Brébant
2,
Silvan Klein
1,
Alexandra Anker
2,
Konstantin Frank
2,
Andreas Siegmund
1,
Andrea Pagani
1,
Sebastian Geis
1,
Sophia Theresa Diesch
2,
Andreas Eigenberger
1 and
Lukas Prantl
1,2
1
Department of Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
2
University Center for Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg and Caritas Hospital St. Josef, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
3
Clinic of Plastic, Aesthetic, and Reconstructive Surgery, Döbling Private Hospital, 1090 Vienna, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cells 2025, 14(12), 898; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14120898 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 29 April 2025 / Revised: 9 June 2025 / Accepted: 11 June 2025 / Published: 14 June 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Histological and immunohistochemical analyses of adipose tissue are essential for evaluating the quality and functionality of lipoaspirates in regenerative medicine and fat grafting procedures. These methods provide insights into tissue viability, cellular subtypes, and extracellular matrix (ECM) composition—all factors influencing graft retention and clinical outcomes. Purpose: This scoping review aims to summarize the most commonly used staining methods and their applications in the histology and immunohistochemistry of adipose tissue. By exploring qualitative and quantitative markers, we seek to guide researchers in selecting the appropriate methodologies for addressing experimental and translational research. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to 2024, employing Boolean operators (“lipoaspirate” OR “fat graft” OR “gauze rolling” OR “decantation” OR “coleman fat” OR “celt” OR “nanofat” OR “lipofilling” OR “human fat” AND “histol*”). Studies were included if they utilized histology or immunohistochemistry on undigested human adipose tissue or its derivatives. The inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed, English-language studies reporting quantitative and qualitative data on adipose tissue markers. Results: Out of 166 studies analyzed, hematoxylin–eosin (H&E) was the most frequently employed histological stain (152 studies), followed by Masson Trichrome and Sudan III. Immunohistochemical markers such as CD31, CD34, and perilipin were extensively used to distinguish stromal vascular fraction (SVF) cells, adipocytes, and inflammatory processes. Studies employing semiquantitative scoring demonstrated enhanced comparability, particularly for fibrosis, necrosis, and oil cyst evaluation. Quantitative analyses focused on SVF cell density, mature adipocyte integrity, and ECM composition. Methodological inconsistencies, particularly in preparation protocols, were observed in 25 studies. Conclusions: This review highlights the critical role of histological and immunohistochemical methods in adipose tissue research. H&E staining remains the cornerstone for general tissue evaluation in the clinical context, while specialized stains and immunohistochemical markers allow for detailed analyses of specific cellular and ECM components in experimental research. Standardizing preparation and evaluation protocols will enhance interstudy comparability and support advancements in adipose tissue-based therapies.

1. Introduction

Adipose tissue is a critical component in regenerative medicine, particularly in esthetic and reconstructive procedures such as lipofilling and fat grafting. These techniques leverage the unique regenerative potential of adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) to achieve functional and esthetic restoration [1,2]. As minimally invasive procedures, they have garnered significant attention in recent years due to their capacity to enhance tissue volume, improve skin quality, and promote long-term graft retention [3,4]. Despite these advantages, clinical outcomes often remain unpredictable, with complications such as fibrosis, necrosis, oil cyst formation, and inflammation frequently compromising success [5,6,7]. A detailed understanding of the structural and cellular properties of adipose tissue is essential for optimizing graft quality and procedural outcomes. Histological analysis has proven indispensable in this context, enabling researchers to evaluate both qualitative markers (e.g., fibrosis, necrosis, inflammation) [8,9] and quantitative markers (e.g., SVF cell counts, mature adipocyte viability, ECM composition) [10,11] that reflect tissue integrity and regenerative potential. By combining histological and immunohistochemical techniques, researchers can comprehensively assess the tissue’s functional capacity and its response to processing and transplantation [12].
Immunohistochemical staining techniques further enhance the scope of analysis by enabling the precise identification and localization of specific cell subpopulations within adipose tissue [13,14]. For example, endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), pericytes, and ADSCs—key components of the SVF—can be identified and quantified to evaluate their role in neovasculogenesis, graft stability, and inflammation modulation [15]. Unlike flow cytometry, which provides aggregate data, immunohistochemistry allows researchers to study the spatial distribution and interactions of these cells within the tissue microenvironment. This capability could be particularly important in understanding the mechanisms that underpin successful graft retention and long-term integration.
Furthermore, histological analysis can evaluate the extracellular matrix (ECM), a crucial scaffold supporting graft retention. According to many researchers, the ECM not only stabilizes adipocytes, but also provides a framework for vascularization and cell proliferation [12]. Mechanical processing methods such as the cell-enriched lipotransfer (CELT) protocol prioritize the retention of ECM and SVF cells while removing mature adipocytes, resulting in improved graft quality and reduced adverse effects [16,17,18,19,20]. Furthermore, these findings suggest that the mechanical enrichment of stem cells does not substantially alter their secreted factors, making it a viable method for lipofilling applications without regulatory concerns.
Despite its potential, the lack of standardized protocols for histological evaluation presents a significant challenge to the field. Variations in staining methods, sample preparation, and reporting practices often lead to inconsistencies, limiting the comparability of findings across studies. For instance, the choice of histological stains—ranging from hematoxylin–eosin (H&E) for general tissue evaluation to specialized stains like Masson Trichrome and Sudan III for ECM and lipid analysis—can influence the interpretability of results. Although H&E is the gold standard for clinical routines, the reviewed staining approaches are primarily useful in research to evaluate functional and structural parameters [21,22]. Similarly, differences in sample preparation techniques, such as centrifugation, filtration, and mechanical processing, can affect the observed cellular and structural properties of the tissue [23,24]. While this underscores the primary rationale behind our emphasis on the selection of the preparation protocol, it should be noted that no correlation exists between the choice of staining and the preparation method of the fat tissue. Furthermore, challenges such as the presence of emulsified fat products, like nanofat, and artifacts introduced during histological preparation, must be carefully addressed to ensure accurate results [20,25].
The present scoping review aims to address these challenges by providing a comprehensive overview of the histological and immunohistochemical staining methods employed in adipose tissue research. The goal of this scoping review is not to generate new biological hypotheses, but rather to consolidate the existing methodological practices in adipose tissue histology and immunohistochemistry, thereby identifying patterns, gaps, and areas for improvement, and offering recommendations for standardizing histological evaluations. This review will serve as a valuable resource for researchers and clinicians, facilitating informed decision-making and providing a comprehensive overview of all pertinent subjects concerning the histology of adipose tissue.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature Search

This review adhered to the methodology outlined in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, specifically Chapter 11 on scoping reviews, and followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and “PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation” [26]. A systematic search of the relevant literature was performed across major databases, including PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library, covering studies published from inception until December of 2024. In our opinion, those 3 databases fit the research question the best. The Boolean operators used for the search included terms such as “lipoaspirate”, “fat graft”, “gauze rolling”, “decantation”, “coleman fat”, “celt”, “nanofat”, “lipofilling”, or “human fat”, combined with the term “histol*” to capture all variations of histological terminology. This search strategy ensured the comprehensive inclusion of studies addressing histological and immunohistochemical methods in adipose tissue research.

2.2. Manual Reference Search

In addition to database searches, all reference lists from the identified studies were manually reviewed to identify any additional relevant articles that might have been overlooked. This manual search step aimed to ensure completeness and minimize the risk of missing pertinent studies.

2.3. Literature Selection

All search results were imported into Zotero 7.0.11 (2024) to manage citations and remove duplicate entries. Following this, two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts to assess their relevance to the inclusion criteria. If the abstract lacked sufficient detail to determine eligibility, the full-text article was retrieved for further evaluation. The inclusion criteria focused on studies utilizing histology or immunohistochemistry in undigested human adipose tissue or its processed derivatives, with a specific emphasis on peer-reviewed articles written in English and reporting on qualitative or quantitative tissue markers. Studies were excluded if they primarily focused on animal adipose tissue to retain the focus on the identification of specific features, isolated stem cells rather than whole tissue, or employed highly complex manipulations beyond standard experimental protocols. To avoid redundancy, duplicate patient cohorts were identified by cross-referencing study characteristics such as authors, institutions, and sample populations, ensuring that each dataset was only included once.

2.4. Data Extraction

Data extraction was performed using a standardized form developed specifically for this review. Two independent researchers extracted details such as study title, author, year of publication, study design, sample size, patient demographics, histological staining methods, qualitative markers (e.g., fibrosis, necrosis, inflammation), quantitative markers (e.g., SVF cell counts, mature adipocyte viability), and preparation protocols (e.g., centrifugation, filtration). The role of histologists or pathologists among the authors was also documented. Discrepancies during data extraction were resolved through discussion, with unresolved disagreements referred to a third reviewer for adjudication.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

This scoping review used descriptive–analytical methods, including frequency, percentage, and data charting using Microsoft Excel 2405 (2021) (Table 1). The screening process was evaluated by independent pairs of authors. The graphs and tables were designed using Microsoft Excel 2405 (2021). The registration number for this scoping review is osf.io/au9vn.

3. Results

3.1. Prisma Flow Diagram

The following flow diagram illustrates the process used to identify studies that meet the inclusion criteria, as outlined in PRISMA 2020 (Figure 1).

3.2. Study Selection

A total of 1122 articles were identified through database searches. After the removal of 428 duplicate entries, 694 articles were screened based on titles and abstracts. At total of 349 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, of which 183 were excluded. Ultimately, 166 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected, representing 166 investigations that analyzed the histological and immunohistochemical techniques for adipose tissue evaluation (Table 2).

3.3. Patient and Animal Sample Characteristics

Across the studies, the mean number of human participants per study was 7.1 (±10.3), while the mean number of animals used for human transplanted fat tissue was 22.8 (±31.5), predominantly using immunodeficient mice. Human fat samples were predominantly harvested via liposuction from areas such as the abdomen, axilla, or flanks. We excluded all studies that featured only animals, but we included those that focused on the transplantation of human adipose tissue into animals.

3.4. Histological Staining Techniques

Hematoxylin–eosin (H&E) was the most frequently used stain, reported in 152 studies (91.5%). Specialized stains such as Masson Trichrome (14.5%) and Sudan III or Sudan Black (2.4%) were utilized to assess extracellular matrix (ECM) components and lipid structures, respectively. In five studies, only immunohistochemical techniques were employed without standard histological staining (Figure 2).

3.5. Immunohistochemical Analysis

Immunohistochemistry was performed in 55.4% of studies. The most used markers included CD31 and vWF for endothelial cells, CD34 and CD90 for stromal vascular fraction (SVF) cells, and perilipin for mature adipocytes. Additionally, markers such as CD68 and F4/80 were employed to identify inflammatory cells, while ECM components were evaluated in a subset of studies using collagen-specific antibodies (Figure 3).

3.6. Preparation Methods

Centrifugation, filtration, gauze rolling, decantation, and mechanical processing were the primary methods for preparing adipose tissue. Seventeen studies (15.1%) did not report all preparations in detail. In 33 studies, fresh lipoaspirates were analyzed, while 139 studies focused on explanted fat. Variations in preparation methods were reported to influence histological and immunohistochemical outcomes (Figure 4).

3.7. Qualitative Markers, Semiquantitative Analysis, and Quantitative Markers

Qualitative markers, including fibrosis, necrosis, inflammation, and oil cyst formation, were evaluated in 137 studies. Fibrosis was analyzed using ECM-targeted stains such as Masson Trichrome, while necrosis and oil cysts were evaluated using H&E or lipid-specific stains like Oil O Red. Inflammation was analyzed based on specified antibodies against immunocompetent cells as macrophages (Figure 5).
Of the 137 qualitative markers studied, 60 studies [8,9,24,25,29,40,42,44,45,49,52,56,58,65,67,69,70,76,85,86,87,88,90,95,97,98,99,100,101,103,105,106,108,112,114,124,125,127,134,135,136,142,146,147,150,151,152,155,156,159,162,163,165,171,174,175,176,177,178,180] utilized semiquantitative scoring systems, in most cases ranging from 0 to 5. An average of 2.5 ± 0.9 authors contributed to the evaluation process. They analyzed a mean of 3.0 ± 0.7 qualitative markers.
Quantitative markers, including SVF cell density, mature adipocyte counts, or vascular structures, were assessed in 156 studies. CD31 and vWF were used to quantify endothelial cells, while perilipin staining measured adipocyte integrity. ECM components were less frequently evaluated quantitatively, with only a minority of studies employing advanced image analysis for semi-automated quantification (Figure 6).

3.8. Author Expertise

Histological or pathological expertise was reported in 20 studies, with 12 studies listing such experts as first or last authors.

3.9. Reporting and Methodological Gaps

Twenty-five studies did not specify their preparation methods. Variations in sample preparation methods were observed across studies, as seen in Table 2. Additionally, the use of advanced imaging or analysis techniques was limited.

4. Discussion

This overview of stain-to-feature associations helps readers to understand the methods used and why they are selected for specific histological evaluations.

4.1. Staining in Histology

In the current context of bioscience, standard histology is a readily accessible resource for many research groups. The predominant staining method for diagnostic practice is in many cases hematoxylin–eosin. This method utilizes hemalaun to stain all basophilic/acidic structures, such as the nucleus, blue, and the synthetic eosin to stain all acidophilic/basic structures, such as the cytoplasm and collagen, red.
This study showed that more specialized stains than those used in clinical routine are commonly used for regenerative medicine and tissue engineering research.
HPS (haematoxylin–phloxine–saffron)/Masson Trichrome—An amendment to the standard H&E staining method is namely HPS (hematoxylin–phloxine–saffron) staining. Its objective is to enhance the contrast between connective tissue and cytoplasm. The transition from eosin to phloxine aims to enhance the contrast by producing a deeper red hue that is less susceptible to fading than that of eosin [184]. In contrast, saffron is employed to stain connective tissue in a yellow hue [185,186].
The Masson Trichrome staining method stains three colors. Collagen is stained blue to green, muscles are stained red, and nucleus are stained black [187]. This staining method is more commonly used than HPS in the evaluation of human fat in scientific research (twenty-four times versus three times). As it stains muscles as well, this method can be used to evaluate tissues that include them, which can occur in explants.
Sudan III/Oil “O” Red—The differentiation between connective tissue and mature adipocytes can be accomplished by Sudan III or Oil O Red staining. Sudan III staining produces an orange-to-red hue [188], while Oil O Red staining yields a red hue coloration [189]. The surface of the red-orange area can be analyzed with image processing software, allowing the success of the processing to be evaluated.

4.2. Staining in Immunohistochemistry

Stem cell markers—In immunohistology, it is standard practice to use a single antibody per histological slice, as all antibodies stain the target structure in a brown hue, making differentiation between them on the same slide challenging [147]. For EPCs, CD31 and the von Willebrand factor (vWF) are common markers: pericytes are identified using CD146, and ADSCs typically express CD34, CD71, and CD90 [15]. In situations where distinguishing ADSCs from hematopoietic stem cells is critical while maintaining the spatial resolution, immunofluorescence may be employed. For example, Zimmerlin et al. (2010) demonstrated that immunofluorescence allows for the simultaneous identification of two to three targets [190], and the inclusion of CD45 can help exclude hematopoietic lineage cells.
A further limitation is that, as illustrated in Figure 7, there are areas of overlap in the specialties of all targets, to varying degrees. This should be considered when designing a study.
If the differentiation of the three subsets was not of interest, CD90 was identified as a marker expressed in all three subsets at a high level (over 50% of described subsets), thus making it a SVF cell marker. Furthermore, ɑ-SMA is able to identify blood vessels, and, therefore angiogenesis [79].
Mature adipocyte markers—The structural integrity and viability of mature adipocytes can be evaluated based on the presence or absence of an intact perilipin layer [45,130,172]. It should be noted that a simple disruption of adipocytes can also be caused by fixation and cutting during the process of histological preparation. To avoid this methodological flaw, it is advisable to spare parts of the slide that are obviously distorted due to histological preparation [191].
Inflammatory cells in particular macrophages and their markers—This complication, which can occur in every transplantation of lipoaspirate, cannot be measured using the previously discussed methods [155]. The localization of immunocompetent cells, such as macrophages and other white blood cells, outside of blood vessels, within the tissue, is an indicator of inflammation [192]. Antibodies that are specific to, for example, macrophages, can therefore be used to identify areas of inflammatory activity. Two markers that fulfill this function are F4/80 and CD68 [40,149]. F4/80 is the murine equivalent to human EMR1, which is also expressed on eosinophile cells [193,194]. Since studies aiming to identify side effects in lipografts are primarily based on explants from human fat as xenografts, using this antibody is an appropriate methodology. CD68 is not murine but human-specific, while its murine ortholog is called macrosialin [195]. It is mainly stored inside macrophages and to a lesser extent on the cell surface. These analyses are mainly supported in scientific research and not in clinical routine.
Extracellular matrix (ECM) markers—While the ECM mainly consists of collagenase I–IV, fibronectin and laminin, components that are crucial for its characteristics, such as neovasculogenesis and insulin metabolism, have been studied [12,196]. Given the limitations of conventional histology in differentiating between these diverse components, immunohistochemistry offers a solution for achieving the spatial resolution of the ECM in fat tissue [197,198].
This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the histological and immunohistochemical methods employed in adipose tissue research, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the current approaches. The dominance of H&E staining as the primary method of analysis reflects its broad applicability and accessibility, making it a staple in the evaluation of adipose tissue. Its ability to provide a general overview of tissue morphology makes it indispensable for assessing both qualitative markers, such as fibrosis, necrosis, and inflammation, and quantitative markers, including adipocyte integrity and SVF cell density. However, the reliance on H&E alone may obscure more nuanced details of tissue architecture, necessitating the integration of specialized stains for a more comprehensive analysis.
Specialized staining methods, such as Masson Trichrome and Sudan III and Sudan Black, demonstrated significant utility in evaluating the ECM and lipid components of adipose tissue, respectively. Despite their potential to enhance the resolution of histological evaluations, these methods remain underutilized, with only 22% of studies incorporating them. The underrepresentation of these techniques underscores a missed opportunity to gain deeper insights into the structural and functional properties of adipose tissue. Given the pivotal role of the ECM in graft retention and the pathophysiology of fibrosis, future research should prioritize the inclusion of these staining methods to address current gaps in the knowledge.
Immunohistochemistry has emerged as a critical tool for elucidating the cellular composition of adipose tissue, enabling the identification and localization of specific cell types within the tissue microenvironment. Markers such as CD31, vWF, CD34, and perilipin offer insights into vascularization, stem cell content, and adipocyte viability. However, the prevalent use of single-marker staining limits the ability to assess complex cellular interactions and their spatial dynamics. Multiparametric approaches, such as multiplex staining immunofluorescence, offer a promising solution by allowing the simultaneous analysis of multiple targets, thereby providing a more holistic view of tissue composition and behavior [147]. The limited adoption of such advanced techniques highlights a critical area for methodological improvement in future studies.
Differences in liposuction techniques, centrifugation protocols, and mechanical processing directly influence the observed histological features, as evidenced by the work of Condé-Green et al. [24]. Although the outcomes of the preparation parameters were not extracted systematically in this scoping review, the lack of detailed reporting on the preparation methods in 25 of the included studies, which can be found in Table 2, marked with “-” for “No comment”, further exacerbates this issue. Standardizing preparation protocols and ensuring comprehensive methodological reporting are essential steps toward enhancing the reliability and generalizability of histological findings in adipose tissue research.
The histological structure of human fat tissue may be influenced by multiple external factors, such as donor age, harvesting site, and pathologies like lipedema. However, in the majority of cases, these factors were either underreported or ambiguously reported. Had they been part of the exclusion criteria, this would have resulted in a significant reduction in the number of included articles, thereby compromising the synthesis. As a result, we chose not to extract these findings in an incomplete and misleading form, but rather to highlight this issue as a limitation. Readers should be aware that pooling the results means that the most common staining methods may not be optimal for answering specific scientific questions about specific pathologies, such as lipedema or metabolic disorders. This review only provides recommendations for cell- and structure-specific staining, not for staining specific to external factors. To enable better comparison and meta-analytic synthesis, we encourage future studies to report these variables more consistently. Additionally, the sample size of patients included in a study often varied considerably and was only reported when applicable. This should be considered when interpreting the frequency of reported staining.
The exclusion of studies utilizing whole tissue fat from animals was based on inter-species disparities, in order to maintain the clinical, human-specific relevance of this review. A significant difference in histological evaluation is the variability in adipocyte size and their distinct behavior in anabolic processes. As Börgeson et al. summarized, human adipocytes tend to be larger [199], and therefore their yield in a histological slide cannot be properly compared to that of mice. Furthermore, they report that, human adipocytes typically undergo hypertrophy, while in mice, a hyperplastic pattern is observed during periods of fat gain [199]. A further point to consider is the method of fat extraction. In the case of small mammals, the fat is collected as a whole fat pad, for example, from the inguinal region, and then minced with scissors [85]. In contrast, human fat is mostly obtained through liposuction. The investigation by Iyyanki et al. sought to ascertain the extent to which these methodologies impact the overall cell yield of SVFCs in white adipose tissue. Their findings revealed significant disparities between liposuction and the excision of fat. Furthermore, they have demonstrated that the harvesting site of WAT exhibits substantial variation in terms of SVFC yield, with the abdomen, the axilla, and the flanks being compared [200,201,202,203].
To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review examining commonly used staining methods and their applications in adipose tissue histology and immunohistochemistry. This review underscores the importance of collaboration with histologists and pathologists to enhance the quality and interpretability of histological analyses. While histological expertise was not a prerequisite for meaningful contributions, as evidenced by the diverse author affiliations in the included studies, involving experts in the field can improve the methodological rigor and depth of analysis. Furthermore, the technician and the laboratory equipment could influence the methodologies and results of histology. Therefore, in the future, a certification program for providers of histological techniques should be developed. Additionally, the adoption of advanced imaging and semi-automated analysis techniques can further enhance the resolution and accuracy of histological evaluations, providing new avenues for exploring the complexities of adipose tissue dynamics.
It is imperative to evaluate the laboratory possibilities in histology. It is important to note that not all laboratories are equipped to offer standard histology or immunohistochemistry. In circumstances where institutional resources are limited, or where the research group has no prior experience of histological assessment, it is advisable to collaborate with departments of histology or pathology for both consultation and execution. In addition to stains and antibodies, it is imperative to consider the adequacy of software for viewing slides, and image processing software or other digital tools for slide evaluation capable of the semi-automated analysis of target structures.

4.3. Recommendations and Operative Considerations

The timing of the histological assessment is crucial in determining the type and interpretive value of the resulting data. Pre-implantation analysis provides information on baseline tissue composition and cellular architecture, but it does not reflect in vivo behavior or integration. Conversely, post-explantation histology allows for the evaluation of inflammatory responses, fibrosis, vascularization, and tissue remodeling. However, variability related to biopsy site, timing, and preservation often affects such samples. These limitations underscore the importance of interpreting histological findings within the context of experimental design and sampling strategies. The recommended stainings for certain cells and complications can be found in Table 3.
Among the studies reviewed, 139 analyzed excised fat as whole tissue, whereas 33 examined lipoaspirates. Lipoaspirates typically present as a non-coherent mixture of mature adipocytes and SVF and ECM cells, whereas whole tissue explants retain a structured, coherent morphology with intact blood vessels. The histological assessment of lipoaspirate poses challenges, including the difficulty of evaluating oil cysts, fibrosis, and inflammation. Extracellular matrix accumulation may be artificially induced and indistinguishable from fibrosis, while extravasated immunocompetent cells may be mistaken for inflammation. The evaluation of oil cysts is further complicated by tissue scaffold disruption, which can mimic cystic structures. Therefore, qualitative markers in lipoaspirates are not typically assessed unless they have undergone implantation and subsequent retrieval, allowing for tissue integration and structural regeneration.
For explants, biopsies, or intact fat excisions, qualitative markers indicative of necrosis, fibrosis, oil cysts/vacuolation, and inflammation/cell infiltration can be effectively analyzed. These markers represent key histological side effects widely discussed in the literature. The most common evaluation approach is semiquantitative, employing a scoring system from 0 to 5, where 0 denotes no evidence of the specified marker and 5 indicates maximal presence. This method facilitates interstudy comparability and minimizes subjectivity, particularly when assessments involve multiple authors.
In the context of evaluating lipoaspirate samples, a quantitative evaluation can also prove beneficial. It is also recommended that this quantitative evaluation be performed on whole tissues. The structures of interest are mainly SVFCs, mature adipocytes, and the ECM. The staining of the ECM is analogous to that of fibrosis.
SVF cells hold the capacity to differentiate into a multitude of tissues, including bone, adipose tissue, neural cells, and cartilage [204,205]. Given the heterogeneous nature of the SVF, we focus on three key subsets of SVF cells: adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs), endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), and pericytes [206]. The aspects of interest are the generation of new adult cells, the fact that inflammatory processes are suppressed, and that neovascularization occurs [36,169,180]. The first point is since adult adipocytes are more susceptible to shear force, which arises when fat is applied through small-diameter cannulas [20]. Moreover, the absence of replacement by stem cells would result in volume loss at the graft site. The destruction of adult adipocytes during application releases free lipids, which can cause inflammation, while SVF cells can act locally and in an anti-inflammatory manner [207]. Neovascularization is of interest because in fresh lipoaspirate, there are insufficient functioning vessels, as they are ripped out of place and into pieces by the liposuction cannula [58]. To ensure long-term graft survival, sufficient vessels are constructed initially, from the EPCs and pericytes, to secure continuous blood flow [71].
Fibrosis is characterized by the uncontrolled expansion of a dermal and cell-poor ECM, best evaluated using Masson Trichrome or hematoxylin–eosin–saffron staining. Inflammation and cell infiltration can be detected via H&E staining, though immunostains for macrophages such as CD68 and F4/80, providing greater accuracy. Necrosis, most effectively analyzed through H&E staining, can also be assessed using hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1α) antibodies to detect oxygen deficiency. Oil cysts and vacuoles require precise diameter measurement and lipid-specific staining methods, such as Oil O Red or Sudan stains, to distinguish them from adipocytes. SVF cells, depending on the research focus, can be analyzed using H&E staining for general evaluation or immunohistochemistry, including FACS and flow cytometry, for precise cell subset identification. Mature adipocytes are best evaluated via H&E staining and perilipin immunostaining, with mice to human differentiation achieved using vimentin immunostaining.
From a methodological perspective, it is imperative to meticulously document the preparation of the fat tissue to ensure maximum comparability with existing studies. Moreover, the publication of the obtained histological slides in their entirety is advantageous, as it enables other researchers to provide a more comprehensive overview than a detailed description of histological slides alone.

5. Conclusions

This scoping review highlights the histological and immunohistochemical techniques commonly employed for adipose tissue analysis. Hematoxylin–eosin remains the most prevalent stain, while markers such as CD31, CD34, and perilipin are frequently used to assess key cellular subpopulations. Variability in methodologies—including preparation techniques and marker selection—underscores the need for standardized protocols to enhance consistency and comparability across studies.
Future research should prioritize the standardized documentation of sample preparation, comprehensive marker panels, and the adoption of advanced imaging techniques. Collaborations with histology and pathology experts are highly recommended to improve methodological rigor. These efforts will enable more robust and reproducible findings, driving advancements in adipose tissue-based therapies and regenerative medicine applications. The findings of this review are a valuable reference for researchers planning a histological evaluation of adipose tissue in the field of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. They also support the idea of improving methodological consistency in clinical and translational contexts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S., R.L., and L.P.; Methodology, T.S., R.L., M.L., V.B., S.K., S.G., A.A. and A.P.; Investigation, T.S., R.L., V.B., S.K., S.G., A.A. and O.F.; Data curation, T.S., A.S., A.P., S.T.D., K.F., and A.E., A.A.; Validation, O.F. and A.E.; Writing—original draft preparation, T.S. and R.L.; Writing—review and editing, T.S., R.L., and M.L.; Visualization, T.S., R.L., and M.L.; Supervision, L.P.; Project administration, R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data is available in Table 1 and Table 2 and upon request from our authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Aronowitz, J.A.; Oheb, D.; Cai, N.; Pekcan, A.; Winterhalter, B. Esthetic Surgery Applications for Adipose-Derived Stem Cells. In Regenerative Medicine; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2023; pp. 265–271. ISBN 978-3-030-75516-4. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dong, L.; Li, X.; Leng, W.; Guo, Z.; Cai, T.; Ji, X.; Xu, C.; Zhu, Z.; Lin, J. Adipose stem cells in tissue regeneration and repair: From bench to bedside. Regen. Ther. 2023, 24, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Stachura, A.; Paskal, W.; Pawlik, W.; Mazurek, M.J.; Jaworowski, J. The Use of Adipose-Derived Stem Cells (ADSCs) and Stromal Vascular Fraction (SVF) in Skin Scar Treatment—A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dong, Z.; Fu, R.; Liu, L.; Lu, F. Stromal vascular fraction (SVF) cells enhance long-term survival of autologous fat grafting through the facilitation of M2 macrophages. Cell Biol. Int. 2013, 37, 855–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Gao, S.; Lu, B.; Zhou, R.; Gao, W. Research progress of mechanisms of fat necrosis after autologous fat grafting: A review. Medicine 2023, 102, e33220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yoshimura, K.; Coleman, S.R. Complications of Fat Grafting. Clin. Plast. Surg. 2015, 42, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, X.; Deng, Z.; Feng, J.; Chang, Q.; Lu, F.; Yuan, Y. Necroptosis in Macrophage Foam Cells Promotes Fat Graft Fibrosis in Mice. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 651360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jia, X.; Chai, Y.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, X.; Jiang, C.; Yin, N.; Li, F. Enhancing Fat Graft Survival via Upregulating Autophagy of Adipocytes. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2024, 48, 1807–1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Genç, İ.G.; Fındıkçıoğlu, K.; Sadioğlu, A.; Erdal, A.I.; Özkoçer, S.E.; Elmas, Ç. The Effect of Ultrasonic Liposuction Energy Levels on Fat Graft Viability. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2022, 46, 2509–2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Säljö, K.; Orrhult, L.S.; Apelgren, P.; Markstedt, K.; Kölby, L.; Gatenholm, P. Successful engraftment, vascularization, and In vivo survival of 3D-bioprinted human lipoaspirate-derived adipose tissue. Bioprinting 2020, 17, e00065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Merrifield, B.A.; Chang, A.; Hostetter, G.; Komorowska-Timek, E. Volume Retention, Metabolism, and Cellular Composition of Human Fat Xenografts. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.-Glob. Open 2018, 6, e1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ruiz-Ojeda, F.J.; Méndez-Gutiérrez, A.; Aguilera, C.M.; Plaza-Díaz, J. Extracellular Matrix Remodeling of Adipose Tissue in Obesity and Metabolic Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Yu, F.; Witman, N.; Yan, D.; Zhang, S.; Zhou, M.; Yan, Y.; Yao, Q.; Ding, F.; Yan, B.; Wang, H.; et al. Human adipose-derived stem cells enriched with VEGF-modified mRNA promote angiogenesis and long-term graft survival in a fat graft transplantation model. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2020, 11, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Li, L.; Pan, S.; Ni, B.; Lin, Y. Improvement in autologous human fat transplant survival with SVF plus VEGF–PLA nano-sustained release microspheres. Cell Biol. Int. 2014, 38, 962–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Thitilertdecha, P.; Lohsiriwat, V.; Poungpairoj, P.; Tantithavorn, V.; Onlamoon, N. Extensive Characterization of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Marker Expression on Freshly Isolated and In Vitro Expanded Human Adipose-Derived Stem Cells from Breast Cancer Patients. Stem Cells Int. 2020, 2020, 8237197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Prantl, L.; Brix, E.; Kempa, S.; Felthaus, O.; Eigenberger, A.; Brébant, V.; Anker, A.; Strauss, C. Facial Rejuvenation with Concentrated Lipograft—A 12 Month Follow-Up Study. Cells 2021, 10, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Prantl, L.; Eigenberger, A.; Reinhard, R.; Siegmund, A.; Heumann, K.; Felthaus, O. Cell-Enriched Lipotransfer (CELT) Improves Tissue Regeneration and Rejuvenation without Substantial Manipulation of the Adipose Tissue Graft. Cells 2022, 11, 3159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Prantl, L.; Eigenberger, A.; Klein, S.; Limm, K.; Oefner, P.J.; Schratzenstaller, T.; Felthaus, O. Shear Force Processing of Lipoaspirates for Stem Cell Enrichment Does Not Affect Secretome of Human Cells Detected by Mass Spectrometry In Vitro. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2020, 146, 749e–758e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Prantl, L.; Eigenberger, A.; Brix, E.; Kempa, S.; Baringer, M.; Felthaus, O. Adipose Tissue-Derived Stem Cell Yield Depends on Isolation Protocol and Cell Counting Method. Cells 2021, 10, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eigenberger, A.; Felthaus, O.; Schratzenstaller, T.; Haerteis, S.; Utpatel, K.; Prantl, L. The Effects of Shear Force-Based Processing of Lipoaspirates on White Adipose Tissue and the Differentiation Potential of Adipose Derived Stem Cells. Cells 2022, 11, 2543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Haan, K.; Zhang, Y.; Zuckerman, J.E.; Liu, T.; Sisk, A.E.; Diaz, M.F.P.; Jen, K.-Y.; Nobori, A.; Liou, S.; Zhang, S.; et al. Deep learning-based transformation of H&E stained tissues into special stains. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 4884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bai, B.; Yang, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Pillar, N.; Ozcan, A. Deep learning-enabled virtual histological staining of biological samples. Light Sci. Appl. 2023, 12, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Condé-Green, A.; Baptista, L.S.; De Amorin, N.F.G.; De Oliveira, E.D.; Da Silva, K.R.; Pedrosa, C.D.S.G.; Borojevic, R.; Pitanguy, I. Effects of Centrifugation on Cell Composition and Viability of Aspirated Adipose Tissue Processed for Transplantation. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2010, 30, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Condé-Green, A.; Gontijo De Amorim, N.F.; Pitanguy, I. Influence of decantation, washing and centrifugation on adipocyte and mesenchymal stem cell content of aspirated adipose tissue: A comparative study. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2010, 63, 1375–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tran, V.V.T.; Hong, K.Y.; Jin, X.; Chang, H. Histological Comparison of Nanofat and Lipoconcentrate: Enhanced Effects of Lipoconcentrate on Adipogenesis and Angiogenesis. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2024, 48, 752–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Adanali, G.; Erdogan, B.; Turegun, M.; Tuncel, A.; Gencaga, S.; Albayrak, L. A New, T-Shaped Adaptor for Easy, Quick and Efficient Fat Harvesting During Liposuction. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2002, 26, 340–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Adem, S.; Abbas, D.B.; Lavin, C.V.; Fahy, E.J.; Griffin, M.; Diaz Deleon, N.M.; Borrelli, M.R.; Mascharak, S.; Shen, A.H.; Patel, R.A.; et al. Decellularized Adipose Matrices Can Alleviate Radiation-Induced Skin Fibrosis. Adv. Wound Care 2022, 11, 524–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Afanas’eva, D.S.; Gushchina, M.B.; Borzenok, S.A. Comparison of Morphology of Adipose Body of the Orbit and Subcutaneous Fat in Humans. Bull. Exp. Biol. Med. 2018, 164, 394–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Agostini, T.; Lazzeri, D.; Pini, A.; Marino, G.; Li Quattrini, A.; Bani, D.; Dini, M. Wet and Dry Techniques for Structural Fat Graft Harvesting: Histomorphometric and Cell Viability Assessments of Lipoaspirated Samples. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2012, 130, 331e–339e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ansorge, H.; Garza, J.R.; McCormack, M.C.; Leamy, P.; Roesch, S.; Barere, A.; Connor, J. Autologous Fat Processing Via the Revolve System: Quality and Quantity of Fat Retention Evaluated in an Animal Model. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2014, 34, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Atanassova, P. Immunohistochemical Expression of S-100 Protein in Human Embryonal Fat Cells. Cells Tissues Organs 2001, 169, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bach-Mortensen, N.; Rømert, P.; Ballegaard, S. Transplantation of Human Adipose Tissue to Nude Mice. Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. 1976, 84, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bae, Y.C.; Song, J.S.; Bae, S.H.; Kim, J.H. Effects of Human Adipose-Derived Stem Cells and Stromal Vascular Fraction on Cryopreserved Fat Transfer. Dermatol. Surg. 2015, 41, 605–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Baker, S.B.; Cohen, M.; Kuo, L.; Johnson, M.; Al-Attar, A.; Zukowska, Z. The Role of the Neuropeptide Y2 Receptor in Liporemodeling: Neuropeptide Y–Mediated Adipogenesis and Adipose Graft Maintenance. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009, 123, 486–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bauer, C.A.; Valentino, J.; Hoffman, H.T. Long-Term Result of Vocal Cord Augmentation with Autogenous Fat. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1995, 104, 871–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bellas, E.; Panilaitis, B.J.B.; Glettig, D.L.; Kirker-Head, C.A.; Yoo, J.J.; Marra, K.G.; Rubin, J.P.; Kaplan, D.L. Sustained volume retention in vivo with adipocyte and lipoaspirate seeded silk scaffolds. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 2960–2968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bi, X.; Wu, W.; Zou, J.; Zhao, J.; Lin, Z.; Li, Y.; Lu, F.; Gao, J.; Li, B.; Dong, Z. Attenuated angiogenesis and macrophage infiltration during adipose tissue regeneration in a megavolume human fat grafting nude mouse model. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2025, 155, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Borrelli, M.R.; Patel, R.A.; Blackshear, C.; Vistnes, S.; Diaz Deleon, N.M.; Adem, S.; Shen, A.H.; Sokol, J.; Momeni, A.; Nguyen, D.; et al. CD34+CD146+ adipose-derived stromal cells enhance engraftment of transplanted fat. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2020, 9, 1389–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bryant, M.S.; Bremer, A.M.; Nguyen, T.Q. Autogeneic Fat Transplants in the Epidural Space in Routine Lumbar Spine Surgery. Neurosurgery 1983, 13, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chai, Y.; Jia, X.; Zhu, J.; Jiang, C.; Yin, N.; Li, F. Increased Fat Graft Survival by Promoting Adipocyte Dedifferentiation. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2023, 43, NP213–NP222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Chajchir, A.; Benzaquen, I. Fat-grafting injection for soft-tissue augmentation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1989, 84, 921–934, discussion 935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chen, A.; Tang, S.; He, J.; Li, X.; Peng, G.; Zhang, H.; Chen, J.; Chen, L.; Chen, X. Small extracellular vesicles from human adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells: A potential promoter of fat graft survival. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2021, 12, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Chen, Y.; Chai, Y.; Yin, B.; Zhang, X.; Han, X.; Cai, L.; Yin, N.; Li, F. Washing Lipoaspirate Improves Fat Graft Survival in Nude Mice. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2022, 46, 923–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, K.; Xiong, J.; Xu, S.; Wu, M.; Xue, C.; Wu, M.; Lv, C.; Wang, Y. Adipose-Derived Stem Cells Exosomes Improve Fat Graft Survival by Promoting Prolipogenetic Abilities through Wnt/β-Catenin Pathway. Stem Cells Int. 2022, 2022, 5014895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, Z.; Liu, T.; Luan, J. Oral Administration of Lutein Improves Fat Graft Survival by Alleviating Oxidative Stress in Mice. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2024, 44, NP906–NP921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chia, H.-L.; Woo, E.; Por, Y.-C.; Ma, D.-R.; Chang, K.; Mok, J.; Kua, J.; Yeow, V. Adipocyte and preadipocyte viability in autologous fat grafts: Comparing the water jet-assisted liposuction (WAL) and Coleman techniques. Eur. J. Plast. Surg. 2015, 38, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chung, N.N.; Ransom, R.C.; Blackshear, C.P.; Irizarry, D.M.; Yen, D.; Momeni, A.; Lee, G.K.; Nguyen, D.H.; Longaker, M.T.; Wan, D.C. Fat Grafting into Younger Recipients Improves Volume Retention in an Animal Model. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2019, 143, 1067–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cicione, C.; Di Taranto, G.; Barba, M.; Isgrò, M.A.; D’Alessio, A.; Cervelli, D.; Sciarretta, F.V.; Pelo, S.; Michetti, F.; Lattanzi, W. In Vitro Validation of a Closed Device Enabling the Purification of the Fluid Portion of Liposuction Aspirates. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2016, 137, 1157–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cicione, C.; Vadalà, G.; Di Giacomo, G.; Tilotta, V.; Ambrosio, L.; Russo, F.; Zampogna, B.; Cannata, F.; Papalia, R.; Denaro, V. Micro-fragmented and nanofat adipose tissue derivatives: In vitro qualitative and quantitative analysis. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2023, 11, 911600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Condé-Green, A.; Wu, I.; Graham, I.; Chae, J.J.; Drachenberg, C.B.; Singh, D.P.; Holton, L.; Slezak, S.; Elisseeff, J. Comparison of 3 Techniques of Fat Grafting and Cell-Supplemented Lipotransfer in Athymic Rats. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2013, 33, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Craft, R.O.; Rophael, J.; Morrison, W.A.; Vashi, A.V.; Mitchell, G.M.; Penington, A.J. Effect of local, long-term delivery of platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) on injected fat graft survival in severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2009, 62, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Cui, X.; Pu, L.L.Q. The Search for a Useful Method for the Optimal Cryopreservation of Adipose Aspirates: Part I. In Vitro Study. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2009, 29, 248–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Cui, X.; Pu, L.L.Q. The Search for a Useful Method for the Optimal Cryopreservation of Adipose Aspirates: Part II. In Vivo Study. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2010, 30, 451–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Davis, K.; Rasko, Y.; Oni, G.; Bills, J.; Geissler, P.; Kenkel, J.M. Comparison of Adipocyte Viability and Fat Graft Survival in an Animal Model Using a New Tissue Liquefaction Liposuction Device vs Standard Coleman Method for Harvesting. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2013, 33, 1175–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Debald, M.; Pech, T.; Kaiser, C.; Keyver-Paik, M.-D.; Walgenbach-Bruenagel, G.; Kalff, J.C.; Kuhn, W.; Walgenbach, K.J. Lipofilling effects after breast cancer surgery in post-radiation patients: An analysis of results and algorithm proposal. Eur. J. Plast. Surg. 2017, 40, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Deleon, N.M.D.; Adem, S.; Lavin, C.V.; Abbas, D.B.; Griffin, M.; King, M.E.; Borrelli, M.R.; Patel, R.A.; Fahy, E.J.; Lee, D.; et al. Angiogenic CD34+CD146+ adipose-derived stromal cells augment recovery of soft tissue after radiotherapy. J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2021, 15, 1105–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dimitroulis, G. Macroscopic and Histologic Analysis of Abdominal Dermis-Fat Grafts Retrieved from Human Temporomandibular Joints. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2011, 69, 2329–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dobran, M.; Brancorsini, D.; Della Costanza, M.; Liverotti, V.; Mancini, F.; Nasi, D.; Iacoangeli, M.; Scerrati, M. Epidural scarring after lumbar disc surgery: Equivalent scarring with/without free autologous fat grafts. Surg. Neurol. Int. 2017, 8, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dong, X.; Premaratne, I.; Gadjiko, M.; Berri, N.; Spector, J.A. Improving fat transplantation survival and vascularization with adenovirus E4+ endothelial cell-assisted lipotransfer. Cells Tissues Organs 2022, 212, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Eskalen, A.; Işık, E.; Ozdemir, I.; Keskin, I.; Keskin, M.; Karacaoglan, N. Evaluation of Perilipin Expression in Centrifuged Fat Grafts on Different Revolutions Per Minute and Duration Combinations. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2024, 49, 1387–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Fan, P.; Fang, M.; Li, J.; Solari, M.G.; Wu, D.; Tan, W.; Wang, Y.; Yang, X.; Lei, S. A Novel Fat Making Strategy with Adipose-Derived Progenitor Cell-Enriched Fat Improves Fat Graft Survival. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2021, 41, NP1228–NP1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ferguson, R.E.H.; Cui, X.; Fink, B.F.; Vasconez, H.C.; Pu, L.L.Q. The Viability of Autologous Fat Grafts Harvested with the LipiVage System: A Comparative Study. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2008, 60, 594–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Filson, S.A.; Keren, A.; Goldstein, N.; Ullmann, Y. The Opposite Expected Effect of p38 Inhibitors on Fat Graft Survival. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.-Glob. Open 2016, 4, e806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fisher, C.; Grahovac, T.L.; Schafer, M.E.; Shippert, R.D.; Marra, K.G.; Rubin, J.P. Comparison of Harvest and Processing Techniques for Fat Grafting and Adipose Stem Cell Isolation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2013, 132, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Girard, A.-C.; Mirbeau, S.; Gence, L.; Hivernaud, V.; Delarue, P.; Hulard, O.; Festy, F.; Roche, R. Effect of Washes and Centrifugation on the Efficacy of Lipofilling with or Without Local Anesthetic. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.-Glob. Open 2015, 3, e496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ha, K.-Y.; Park, H.; Park, S.-H.; Lee, B.-I.; Ji, Y.-H.; Kim, T.-Y.; Yoon, E.-S. The Relationship of a Combination of Human Adipose Tissue-Derived Stem Cells and Frozen Fat with the Survival Rate of Transplanted Fat. Arch. Plast. Surg. 2015, 42, 677–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hamed, S.; Egozi, D.; Kruchevsky, D.; Teot, L.; Gilhar, A.; Ullmann, Y. Erythropoietin Improves the Survival of Fat Tissue after Its Transplantation in Nude Mice. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hamed, S.; Ben-Nun, O.; Egozi, D.; Keren, A.; Malyarova, N.; Kruchevsky, D.; Gilhar, A.; Ullmann, Y. Treating Fat Grafts with Human Endothelial Progenitor Cells Promotes Their Vascularization and Improves Their Survival in Diabetes Mellitus. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2012, 130, 801–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Harris, W.M.; Plastini, M.; Kappy, N.; Ortiz, T.; Chang, S.; Brown, S.; Carpenter, J.P.; Zhang, P. Endothelial Differentiated Adipose-Derived Stem Cells Improvement of Survival and Neovascularization in Fat Transplantation. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2019, 39, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. He, Y.; Yu, X.; Chen, Z.; Li, L. Stromal vascular fraction cells plus sustained release VEGF/Ang-1-PLGA microspheres improve fat graft survival in mice. J. Cell. Physiol. 2019, 234, 6136–6146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. He, J.; Chen, F.; Zhang, Y.; Tan, P.; Li, Q.; Cheng, C. Concentrated ultrasound-processed fat (CUPF): More than a mechanically emulsified graft. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2023, 83, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Herly, M.; Ørholt, M.; Glovinski, P.V.; Pipper, C.B.; Broholm, H.; Poulsgaard, L.; Fugleholm, K.; Thomsen, C.; Drzewiecki, K.T. Quantifying Long-Term Retention of Excised Fat Grafts: A Longitudinal, Retrospective Cohort Study of 108 Patients Followed for Up to 8.4 Years. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017, 139, 1223–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Hersant, B.; Bouhassira, J.; SidAhmed-Mezi, M.; Vidal, L.; Keophiphath, M.; Chheangsun, B.; Niddam, J.; Bosc, R.; Nezet, A.L.; Meningaud, J.-P.; et al. Should platelet-rich plasma be activated in fat grafts? An animal study. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2018, 71, 681–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hivernaud, V.; Lefourn, B.; Robard, M.; Guicheux, J.; Weiss, P. Autologous fat grafting: A comparative study of four current commercial protocols. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2017, 70, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ho, C.; Zheng, D.; Sun, J.; Wen, D.; Wu, S.; Yu, L.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Q. LRG-1 promotes fat graft survival through the RAB31-mediated inhibition of hypoxia-induced apoptosis. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2022, 26, 3153–3168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hoareau, L.; Bencharif, K.; Girard, A.-C.; Gence, L.; Delarue, P.; Hulard, O.; Festy, F.; Roche, R. Effect of centrifugation and washing on adipose graft viability: A new method to improve graft efficiency. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2013, 66, 712–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hsiao, H.-Y.; Lai, C.-Y.; Liu, J.-W.; Yu, Y.-Y.; Chang, F.C.-S.; Huang, J.-J. Fate of Fat Grafting In Vivo and In Vitro: Does the Suction-Assisted Lipectomy Device Matter? Aesthet. Surg. J. 2021, 41, NP1323–NP1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hu, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, M.; Tian, W.; Wang, H. Concentrated Growth Factor Enhanced Fat Graft Survival: A Comparative Study. Dermatol. Surg. 2018, 44, 976–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Huang, H.; Feng, S.; Zhang, W.; Li, W.; Xu, P.; Wang, X.; Ai, A. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles improve the survival of transplanted fat grafts. Mol. Med. Rep. 2017, 16, 3069–3078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ichikawa, K.; Miyasaka, M.; Tanaka, R.; Tanino, R.; Mizukami, K.; Wakaki, M. Histologic evaluation of the pulsed Nd:YAG laser for laser lipolysis. Lasers Surg. Med. 2005, 36, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Janarthanan, R.; Jayakumar, R.; Iyer, S. Injectable Pectin–Alginate Hydrogels for Improving Vascularization and Adipogenesis of Human Fat Graft. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Jiang, A.; Li, M.; Duan, W.; Dong, Y.; Wang, Y. Improvement of the Survival of Human Autologous Fat Transplantation by Adipose-Derived Stem-Cells-Assisted Lipotransfer Combined with bFGF. Sci. World J. 2015, 2015, 968057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Jiang, X.; Li, F.; Chen, Y.; Fang, J.; Luo, S.; Wang, H. Exosomes Derived from Human Adipose-Derived Stem Cells Cannot Distinctively Promote Graft Survival in Cryopreservation Fat Grafting. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2023, 47, 2117–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jin, S.; Yang, Z.; Han, X.; Li, F. Blood Impairs Viability of Fat Grafts and Adipose Stem Cells: Importance of Washing in Fat Processing. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2021, 41, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jung, J.A.; Kim, Y.W.; Cheon, Y.W.; Kang, S.R. Effects of the Diabetic Condition on Grafted Fat Survival: An Experimental Study Using Streptozotocin-Induced Diabetic Rats. Arch. Plast. Surg. 2014, 41, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kakudo, N.; Tanaka, Y.; Morimoto, N.; Ogawa, T.; Kushida, S.; Hara, T.; Kusumoto, K. Adipose-derived regenerative cell (ADRC)-enriched fat grafting: Optimal cell concentration and effects on grafted fat characteristics. J. Transl. Med. 2013, 11, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kamel, A.H.; Kamal, A.; Abou-Elghait, A.T. A quantitative analysis of the effects of different harvesting, preparation, and injection methods on the integrity of fat cells. Eur. J. Plast. Surg. 2014, 37, 469–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kanamori, M.; Kawaguchi, Y.; Ohmori, K.; Kimura, T.; Tsuji, H.; Matsui, H. The Fate of Autogenous Free-Fat Grafts After Posterior Lumbar Surgery. Spine 2001, 26, 2264–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kelmendi-Doko, A.; Rubin, J.P.; Klett, K.; Mahoney, C.; Wang, S.; Marra, K.G. Controlled dexamethasone delivery via double-walled microspheres to enhance long-term adipose tissue retention. J. Tissue Eng. 2017, 8, 2041731417735402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kelmendi-Doko, A.; Marra, K.G.; Vidic, N.; Tan, H.; Rubin, J.P. Adipogenic Factor-Loaded Microspheres Increase Retention of Transplanted Adipose Tissue. Tissue Eng. Part A 2014, 20, 2283–2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Khater, R.; Atanassova, P.; Anastassov, Y.; Pellerin, P.; Martinot-Duquennoy, V. Clinical and Experimental Study of Autologous Fat Grafting After Processing by Centrifugation and Serum Lavage. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2009, 33, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Kijima, Y.; Yoshinaka, H.; Hirata, M.; Umekita, Y.; Sohda, M.; Koriyama, C.; Mizoguchi, T.; Arima, H.; Nakajo, A.; Ishigami, S.; et al. Clinical and pathologic evaluation of implanted free dermal fat grafts after breast cancer surgery: A retrospective analysis. Surgery 2012, 151, 444–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Kim, Y.W.; Min, H.J.; Choi, R.J.; Lee, D.H.; Cheon, Y.W. Insulin Promotes Adipose-Derived Stem Cell Differentiation after Fat Grafting. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018, 142, 927–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kim, D.-H.; Kim, D.-S.; Ha, H.-J.; Jung, J.-W.; Baek, S.-W.; Baek, S.H.; Kim, T.-H.; Lee, J.C.; Hwang, E.; Han, D.K. Fat Graft with Allograft Adipose Matrix and Magnesium Hydroxide-Incorporated PLGA Microspheres for Effective Soft Tissue Reconstruction. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2022, 19, 553–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kim, S.E.; Kim, Y.J.; Kim, Y.W.; Cheon, Y.W. Heating pretreatment of the recipient site enhances survival of transplanted fat in a mouse model. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2023, 152, 787–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kim, J.; Tran, V.V.T.; Hong, K.Y.; Chang, H. Effect of Injectable Acellular Adipose Matrix on Soft Tissue Reconstruction in a Murine Model. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2024, 48, 2210–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kirkham, J.C.; Lee, J.H.; Medina, M.A.; McCormack, M.C.; Randolph, M.A.; Austen, W.G. The Impact of Liposuction Cannula Size on Adipocyte Viability. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2012, 69, 479–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ko, M.-S.; Jung, J.-Y.; Shin, I.-S.; Choi, E.-W.; Kim, J.-H.; Kang, S.K.; Ra, J.C. Effects of Expanded Human Adipose Tissue-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells on the Viability of Cryopreserved Fat Grafts in the Nude Mouse. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2011, 8, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kokai, L.E.; Jones, T.L.; Silowash, R.; Theisen, B.; DiBernardo, G.; Lu, A.; Yi, B.; Marra, K.G.; Rubin, J.P. Optimization and Standardization of the Immunodeficient Mouse Model for Assessing Fat Grafting Outcomes. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017, 140, 1185–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kuwahara, K.; Gladstone, H.B.; Gupta, V.; Kireev, V.; Neel, V.; Moy, R.L. Rupture of fat cells using laser-generated ultra short stress waves. Lasers Surg. Med. 2003, 32, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Lee, J.H.; Kirkham, J.C.; McCormack, M.C.; Nicholls, A.M.; Randolph, M.A.; Austen, W.G. The Effect of Pressure and Shear on Autologous Fat Grafting. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2013, 131, 1125–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Lei, H.; Xiao, R. A Study of the Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Outcomes After Aspirated Human Fat Grafting with Experimental Design. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2020, 31, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Li, B.-W.; Liao, W.-C.; Wu, S.-H.; Ma, H. Cryopreservation of Fat Tissue and Application in Autologous Fat Graft: In Vitro and In Vivo Study. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2012, 36, 714–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Li, K.; Gao, J.; Zhang, Z.; Li, J.; Cha, P.; Liao, Y.; Wang, G.; Lu, F. Selection of Donor Site for Fat Grafting and Cell Isolation. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2013, 37, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Li, F.; Guo, W.; Li, K.; Yu, M.; Tang, W.; Wang, H.; Tian, W. Improved Fat Graft Survival by Different Volume Fractions of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Adipose-Derived Stem Cells. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2015, 35, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Li, Y.; Mou, S.; Xiao, P.; Li, G.; Li, J.; Tong, J.; Wang, J.; Yang, J.; Sun, J.; Wang, Z. Delayed two steps PRP injection strategy for the improvement of fat graft survival with superior angiogenesis. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 5231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Li, B.; Quan, Y.; He, Y.; He, Y.; Lu, F.; Liao, Y.; Cai, J. A Preliminary Exploratory Study of Autologous Fat Transplantation in Breast Augmentation with Different Fat Transplantation Planes. Front. Surg. 2022, 9, 895674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Li, Z.; Wei, Q.; Li, Y.; Yang, F.; Ke, C.; Li, T.; Li, L.; Cai, Z. Dexmedetomidine regulates the anti-oxidation and autophagy of adipose-derived stromal cells under H2O2-induced oxidative stress through Nrf2/p62 pathway and improves the retention rate of autologous fat transplantation. Front. Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1453938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Li, Z.; Qi, J.; Fu, S.; Luan, J.; Wang, Q. Effects of nanographene oxide on adipose-derived stem cell cryopreservation. Cell Tissue Bank. 2024, 25, 805–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Li, Z.; Lu, J.; Dong, Z.; Liang, J.; Li, S.; Han, W.; Cui, T.; Liu, H. Glutathione supplementation improves fat graft survival by inhibiting ferroptosis via the SLC7A11/GPX4 axis. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2024, 15, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Liu, M.; Wang, G.; Jin, W.; Wu, H.; Liu, N.; Zhen, Y.; An, Y. Poloxamer 188 washing of lipoaspirate improves fat graft survival: A comparative study in nude mice. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2024, 95, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Loder, S.; Wang, S.; Amurgis, C.; DeSanto, M.; Stavros, A.G.; Patadji, S.; Olevian, D.; Lee, P.; Guerrero, D.; Gusenoff, J.A.; et al. Active Vitamin D3 (Calcitriol) Increases Adipose Graft Retention in a Xenograft Model. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2023, 43, NP449–NP465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Lu, F.; Li, J.; Gao, J.; Ogawa, R.; Ou, C.; Yang, B.; Fu, B. Improvement of the Survival of Human Autologous Fat Transplantation by Using VEGF-Transfected Adipose-Derived Stem Cells. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009, 124, 1437–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Luan, A.; Zielins, E.R.; Wearda, T.; Atashroo, D.A.; Blackshear, C.P.; Raphel, J.; Brett, E.A.; Flacco, J.; Alyono, M.C.; Momeni, A.; et al. Dynamic Rheology for the Prediction of Surgical Outcomes in Autologous Fat Grafting. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017, 140, 517–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Luo, X.; Cao, W.; Xu, H.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Lu, Y.; Jin, X.; Ren, X.; He, J.; Fu, M.; et al. Coimplanted Endothelial Cells Improve Adipose Tissue Grafts’ Survival by Increasing Vascularization. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2015, 26, 358–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Lv, T.; Gu, Y.; Bi, J.; Kang, N.; Yang, Z.; Fu, X.; Wang, Q.; Yan, L.; Liu, X.; Cao, Y.; et al. Fructose 1,6-Bisphosphate as a Protective Agent for Experimental Fat Grafting. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2019, 8, 606–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Major, G.; Longoni, A.; Simcock, J.; Magon, N.J.; Harte, J.; Bathish, B.; Kemp, R.; Woodfield, T.; Lim, K.S. Clinical Applicability of Visible Light-Mediated Cross-linking for Structural Soft Tissue Reconstruction. Adv. Sci. 2023, 10, 2300538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Martin-Ferrer, S. Failure of Autologous Fat Grafts to Prevent Postoperative Epidural Fibrosis in Surgery of the Lumbar Spine. Neurosurgery 1989, 24, 718–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Massiah, G.; De Palma, G.; Negri, A.; Mele, F.; Loisi, D.; Paradiso, A.V.; Ressa, C.M. Cryopreservation of adipose tissue with and without cryoprotective agent addition for breast lipofilling: A cytological and histological study. Cryobiology 2021, 103, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Mecott, G.A.; Gonzalez-Cantu, C.M.; Moreno-Peña, P.J.; Flores, P.P.; Castro-Govea, Y.; De Oca-Luna, R.M.; Perez-Trujillo, J.J.; Garcia-Perez, M.M. Effect of Diameter and Fenestration Area of the Liposuction Cannula on the Viability of the Adipocytes. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2022, 46, 912–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Medina, M.A.; Nguyen, J.T.; McCormack, M.M.; Randolph, M.A.; Austen, W.G. A high-throughput model for fat graft assessment. Lasers Surg. Med. 2009, 41, 738–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Medina, M.A.; Nguyen, J.T.; Kirkham, J.C.; Lee, J.H.; McCormack, M.C.; Randolph, M.A.; Austen, W.G. Polymer Therapy: A Novel Treatment to Improve Fat Graft Viability. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011, 127, 2270–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Minn, K.-W.; Min, K.-H.; Chang, H.; Kim, S.; Heo, E.-J. Effects of Fat Preparation Methods on the Viabilities of Autologous Fat Grafts. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2010, 34, 626–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Mojallal, A.; Lequeux, C.; Shipkov, C.; Rifkin, L.; Rohrich, R.; Duclos, A.; Brown, S.; Damour, O. Stem Cells, Mature Adipocytes, and Extracellular Scaffold: What Does Each Contribute to Fat Graft Survival? Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2011, 35, 1061–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Nelissen, X.; Licciardi, S.; Nizet, C.; Delay, E.; Roche, R. Comparative Analysis of a New Automatic System and Four Existing Techniques for Autologous Fat Grafting. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.-Glob. Open 2023, 11, e5349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Nguyen, P.S.A.; Desouches, C.; Gay, A.M.; Hautier, A.; Magalon, G. Development of micro-injection as an innovative autologous fat graft technique: The use of adipose tissue as dermal filler. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2012, 65, 1692–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Nicoli, F.; Chilgar, R.M.; Sapountzis, S.; Lazzeri, D.; Sze Wei, M.Y.; Ciudad, P.; Nicoli, M.; Lim, S.Y.; Chen, P.-Y.; Constantinides, J.; et al. Lymphedema Fat Graft: An Ideal Filler for Facial Rejuvenation. Arch. Plast. Surg. 2014, 41, 588–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Nie, F.; Ding, P.; Zhang, C.; Zhao, Z.; Bi, H. Extracellular vesicles derived from lipoaspirate fluid promote fat graft survival. Adipocyte 2021, 10, 293–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Nie, M.; Tian, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Lei, S.; Wu, D. Enhancing high-quality fat survival: A novel strategy using cell-free fat extract. FASEB J. 2024, 38, e23733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Niechajev, I.; Śevćuk, O. Long-Term Results of Fat Transplantation: Clinical and Histologic Studies. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1994, 94, 496–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Niţă, A.C.; Jianu, D.M.; Florescu, I.P.; Filipescu, M.; Cobani, O.; Jianu, S.A.; Chiriţă, D.A.; Bold, A. The synergy between lasers and adipose tissues surgery in cervicofacial rejuvenation: Histopathological aspects. Rom. J. Morphol Embryol 2013, 54, 1039–1043. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  134. Oh, D.S.; Cheon, Y.W.; Jeon, Y.R.; Lew, D.H. Activated Platelet-Rich Plasma Improves Fat Graft Survival in Nude Mice: A Pilot Study. Dermatol. Surg. 2011, 37, 619–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Olenczak, J.B.; Seaman, S.A.; Lin, K.Y.; Pineros-Fernandez, A.; Davis, C.E.; Salopek, L.S.; Peirce, S.M.; Cottler, P.S. Effects of Collagenase Digestion and Stromal Vascular Fraction Supplementation on Volume Retention of Fat Grafts. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2017, 78, S335–S342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Paik, K.J.; Zielins, E.R.; Atashroo, D.A.; Maan, Z.N.; Duscher, D.; Luan, A.; Walmsley, G.G.; Momeni, A.; Vistnes, S.; Gurtner, G.C.; et al. Studies in Fat Grafting: Part V. Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer to Enhance Fat Graft Retention Is Dose Dependent. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2015, 136, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Palumbo, P.; Miconi, G.; Cinque, B.; La Torre, C.; Lombardi, F.; Zoccali, G.; Orsini, G.; Leocata, P.; Giuliani, M.; Cifone, M.G. In Vitro Evaluation of Different Methods of Handling Human Liposuction Aspirate and Their Effect on Adipocytes and Adipose Derived Stem Cells. J. Cell. Physiol. 2015, 230, 1974–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Park, E.; Kim, H.; Kim, M.; Oh, H. Histological changes after treatment for localized fat deposits with phosphatidylcholine and sodium deoxycholate. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2013, 12, 240–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Park, T.H.; Choi, W.Y.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, W.J. Micronized Cross-Linked Human Acellular Dermal Matrices: An Effective Scaffold for Collagen Synthesis and Promising Material for Tissue Augmentation. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2017, 14, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Pelosi, M.; Testet, E.; Le Lay, S.; Dugail, I.; Tang, X.; Mabilleau, G.; Hamel, Y.; Madrange, M.; Blanc, T.; Odent, T.; et al. Normal human adipose tissue functions and differentiation in patients with biallelic LPIN1 inactivating mutations. J. Lipid Res. 2017, 58, 2348–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Philips, B.J.; Grahovac, T.L.; Valentin, J.E.; Chung, C.W.; Bliley, J.M.; Pfeifer, M.E.; Roy, S.B.; Dreifuss, S.; Kelmendi-Doko, A.; Kling, R.E.; et al. Prevalence of Endogenous CD34+ Adipose Stem Cells Predicts Human Fat Graft Retention in a Xenograft Model. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2013, 132, 845–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Por, Y.-C.; Yeow, V.K.-L.; Louri, N.; Lim, T.K.-H.; Kee, I.; Song, I.-C. Platelet-rich plasma has no effect on increasing free fat graft survival in the nude mouse. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2009, 62, 1030–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Pu, L.L.Q.; Coleman, S.R.; Cui, X.; Ferguson, R.E.H.; Vasconez, H.C. Autologous Fat Grafts Harvested and Refined by the Coleman Technique: A Comparative Study. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2008, 122, 932–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Pu, L.L.Q.; Coleman, S.R.; Cui, X.; Ferguson, R.E.H.; Vasconez, H.C. Cryopreservation of Autologous Fat Grafts Harvested with the Coleman Technique. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2010, 64, 333–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Ragni, E.; Viganò, M.; Torretta, E.; Perucca Orfei, C.; Colombini, A.; Tremolada, C.; Gelfi, C.; De Girolamo, L. Characterization of Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Architecture, Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Content and Release of Paracrine Mediators. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Ramon, Y.; Shoshani, O.; Peled, I.J.; Gilhar, A.; Carmi, N.; Fodor, L.; Risin, Y.; Ullmann, Y. Enhancing the Take of Injected Adipose Tissue by a Simple Method for Concentrating Fat Cells. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2005, 115, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Reddy, R.; Iyer, S.; Sharma, M.; Vijayaraghavan, S.; Kishore, P.; Mathew, J.; Unni, A.K.K.; Reshmi, P.; Sharma, R.; Prasad, C. Effect of external volume expansion on the survival of fat grafts. Indian J. Plast. Surg. 2016, 49, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Sesé, B.; Sanmartín, J.M.; Ortega, B.; Llull, R. Human Stromal Cell Aggregates Concentrate Adipose Tissue Constitutive Cell Population by In Vitro DNA Quantification Analysis. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2020, 146, 1285–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Sheng, L.; Yu, Z.; Li, S.; Cao, W. Long-term volume retention after fat processing with cotton gauze rolling and centrifugation: A comparative study in nude mice. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2022, 75, 4290–4296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Shoshani, O.; Shupak, A.; Ullmann, Y.; Ramon, Y.; Gilhar, A.; Kehat, I.; Peled, I.J. The Effect of Hyperbaric Oxygenation on the Viability of Human Fat Injected into Nude Mice. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2000, 106, 1390–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Shoshani, O.; Ullmann, Y.; Shupak, A.; Ramon, Y.; Gilhar, A.; Kehat, I.; Peled, I.J. The Role of Frozen Storage in Preserving Adipose Tissue Obtained by Suction-Assisted Lipectomy for Repeated Fat Injection Procedures. Dermatol. Surg. 2001, 27, 645–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Shoshani, O.; Livne, E.; Armoni, M.; Shupak, A.; Berger, J.; Ramon, Y.; Fodor, L.; Gilhar, A.; Peled, I.J.; Ullmann, Y. The Effect of Interleukin-8 on the Viability of Injected Adipose Tissue in Nude Mice. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2005, 115, 853–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Skorobac Asanin, V.; Sopta, J. Lower Leg Augmentation with Fat Grafting, MRI and Histological Examination. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2017, 41, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Smith, P.; Adams, W.P.; Lipschitz, A.H.; Chau, B.; Sorokin, E.; Rohrich, R.J.; Brown, S.A. Autologous Human Fat Grafting: Effect of Harvesting and Preparation Techniques on Adipocyte Graft Survival. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2006, 117, 1836–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Sun, J.-M. Salvianolic Acid B Reduces the Inflammation of Fat Grafts by Inhibiting the NF-Kb Signalling Pathway in Macrophages. Aesthetic Surg. J. 2023, 43, NP372–NP390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Szychta, P.; Kuczynski, M.; Dzieniecka, M. Histological Properties of Adipose Tissue as an Autologous Tissue Filler Harvested from Different Donor Areas and Impact of Centrifugation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.-Glob. Open 2024, 12, e5912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Teng, S.-C.; Li, L.-T.; Chen, S.-G.; Chen, T.-M.; Liao, C.-H.; Fang, H.-W. Dose-Dependent Effects of Adipose Tissue-Derived Stromal Vascular Fraction Cells on Angiogenesis and Fibrosis in Human Fat Grafts. Biomed. Eng. Appl. Basis Commun. 2014, 26, 1450045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Tong, Y.; Liu, P.; Wang, Y.; Geng, C.; Han, X.; Ma, J.; Li, F.; Cai, L. The Effect of Liposuction Cannula Diameter on Fat Retention—Based on a Rheological Simulation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.-Glob. Open 2018, 6, e2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Ullmann, Y.; Shoshani, O.; Fodor, A.; Ramon, Y.; Carmi, N.; Eldor, L.; Gilhar, A. Searching for the Favorable Donor Site for Fat Injection: In Vivo Study Using the Nude Mice Model. Dermatol. Surg. 2006, 31, 1304–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Van Dongen, J.A.; Gostelie, O.F.E.; Vonk, L.A.; De Bruijn, J.J.; Van Der Lei, B.; Harmsen, M.C.; Stevens, H.P. Fractionation of Adipose Tissue Procedure with a Disposable One-Hole Fractionator. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2020, 40, NP194–NP201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Von Heimburg, D.; Pallua, N. Two-Year Histological Outcome of Facial Lipofilling. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2001, 46, 644–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Wang, R.; Sun, J.; Xiong, L.; Yang, J. Influence of Repeated Aspiration on Viability of Fat Grafts: A Comparative Study. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2015, 35, NP248–NP260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Wei, S.; Liu, W.; Gundogan, B.; Moscoso, A.V.; Orgill, D.P.; Giatsidis, G. Delayed Postconditioning with External Volume Expansion Improves Survival of Adipose Tissue Grafts in a Murine Model. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2019, 143, 99e–110e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Weisz, G.M.; Gal, A. Long-term Survival of a Free Fat Graft in the Spinal Canal: A 40-Month Postlaminectomy Case Report. Clin. Orthop. 1986, 205, 204–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Wu, M.; Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Feng, J.; Wang, J.; Xiao, X.; Lu, F.; Dong, Z. Botulinum Toxin A Improves Supramuscular Fat Graft Retention by Enhancing Angiogenesis and Adipogenesis. Dermatol. Surg. 2020, 46, 646–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Wu, W.; Bi, X.; Zhao, J.; Lin, Z.; Lu, F.; Dong, Z.; Li, Y. Ultra-condensed Fat: A Novel Fat Product for Volume Augmentation. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2023, 47, 2074–2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Xia, J.; Zhu, H.; Zhu, S.; Ge, J.; Wang, Z.; Lu, F.; Liao, Y.; Cai, J. Induced Beige Adipocytes Improved Fat Graft Retention by Promoting Adipogenesis and Angiogenesis. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2021, 148, 549–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Xie, Y.; Zheng, D.; Li, Q.; Chen, Y.; Lei, H.; Pu, L.L.Q. The effect of centrifugation on viability of fat grafts: An evaluation with the glucose transport test. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2010, 63, 482–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Xiong, B.-J.; Tan, Q.-W.; Chen, Y.-J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Tang, S.-L.; Zhang, S.; Lv, Q. The Effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Adipose-Derived Stem Cells on Neovascularization and Fat Graft Survival. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2018, 42, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Xu, F.; Li, H.; Yin, Q.-S.; Liu, D.; Nan, H.; Zhao, P.; Liang, S. Human Breast Adipose-Derived Stem Cells Transfected with the Stromal Cell-Derived Factor-1 Receptor CXCR4 Exhibit Enhanced Viability in Human Autologous Free Fat Grafts. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2014, 34, 2091–2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Yagima Odo, M.E.; Cucé, L.C.; Odo, L.M.; Natrielli, A. Action of Sodium Deoxycholate on Subcutaneous Human Tissue: Local and Systemic Effects. Dermatol. Surg. 2007, 33, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Yang, X.; Brower, J.P.; Kokai, L.; Gusenoff, B.R.; Gusenoff, J.A. A New Device for Autologous Small Volume Fat Grafting. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2021, 41, NP1686–NP1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Yang, F.; Li, Z.; Cai, Z.; He, Y.; Ke, C.; Wang, J.; Lin, M.; Li, L. Pluronic F-127 Hydrogel Loaded with Human Adipose-Derived Stem Cell-Derived Exosomes Improve Fat Graft Survival via HIF-1α-Mediated Enhancement of Angiogenesis. Int. J. Nanomedicine 2023, 18, 6781–6796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Yang, Z.; Lu, H.; Gao, Q.; Yuan, X.; Hu, Y.; Qi, Z. Enhancing Fat Transplantation Efficiency in a Mouse Model through Pretreatment of Adipose-Derived Stem Cells with RIP3 Inhibitors. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2024, 48, 3488–3499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Yi, C.; Pan, Y.; Zhen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, X.; Shu, M.; Han, Y.; Guo, S. Enhancement of Viability of Fat Grafts in Nude Mice by Endothelial Progenitor Cells. Dermatol. Surg. 2006, 32, 1437–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Yi, C.G.; Xia, W.; Zhang, L.X.; Zhen, Y.; Shu, M.G.; Han, Y.; Guo, S.Z. VEGF gene therapy for the survival of transplanted fat tissue in nude mice. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2007, 60, 272–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Yu, Q.; Cai, Y.; Huang, H.; Wang, Z.; Xu, P.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, W.; Li, W. Co-Transplantation of Nanofat Enhances Neovascularization and Fat Graft Survival in Nude Mice. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2018, 38, 667–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Yu, P.; Zhai, Z.; Lu, H.; Jin, X.; Yang, X.; Qi, Z. Platelet-Rich Fibrin Improves Fat Graft Survival Possibly by Promoting Angiogenesis and Adipogenesis, Inhibiting Apoptosis, and Regulating Collagen Production. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2020, 40, NP530–NP545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Yu, P.; Yang, X.; Zhai, Z.; Gao, Q.; Yang, Z.; Qi, Z. Long-Term Effects of Platelet-Rich Fibrin on Fat Graft Survival and Their Optimal Mixing Ratio. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2021, 41, NP921–NP934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Zhan, W.; Tan, S.S.; Han, X.; Palmer, J.A.; Mitchell, G.M.; Morrison, W.A. Indomethacin Enhances Fat Graft Retention by Up-Regulating Adipogenic Genes and Reducing Inflammation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017, 139, 1093e–1104e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Zhang, Y.; Cai, J.; Zhou, T.; Yao, Y.; Dong, Z.; Lu, F. Improved Long-Term Volume Retention of Stromal Vascular Fraction Gel Grafting with Enhanced Angiogenesis and Adipogenesis. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018, 141, 676e–686e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Zhao, P.; Wang, B.; Wang, L.; Fu, Z.; Hu, J.; Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; He, Y. Rapid printing of 3D porous scaffolds for breast reconstruction. Bio-Des. Manuf. 2023, 6, 691–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Zhu, H.; Quan, Y.; Wang, J.; Jiang, S.; Lu, F.; Cai, J.; Liao, Y. Improving Low-Density Fat by Condensing Cellular and Collagen Content through a Mechanical Process: Basic Research and Clinical Applications. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2021, 148, 1029–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Rosenbaum, R. Phloxine As An Histologic Stain, Especially In Combination with Hematoxylin. Stain Technol. 1947, 22, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Ceccopieri, C.; Skonieczna, J.; Madej, J.P. Modification of a haematoxylin, eosin, and natural saffron staining method for the detection of connective tissue. J. Vet. Res. 2021, 65, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Valls, A.A.; Cosio, M.G. Periodic Acid Schiff—Hematoxylin, Phloxine, Saffron: A New Multi-Purpose Stain. J. Histotechnol. 1979, 2, 104–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Exbrayat, J.-M. Microscopy: Light Microscopy and Histochemical Methods. In Encyclopedia of Food and Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 715–723. ISBN 978-0-12-384953-3. [Google Scholar]
  188. Read, B.E. Sudan III|C22H16N4O|CID 62331-PubChem. Science 1918, 47, 562–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Sikkeland, J.; Jin, Y.; Saatcioglu, F. Methods to Assess Lipid Accumulation in Cancer Cells. In Methods in Enzymology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 542, pp. 407–423. ISBN 978-0-12-416618-9. [Google Scholar]
  190. Zimmerlin, L.; Donnenberg, V.S.; Pfeifer, M.E.; Meyer, E.M.; Péault, B.; Rubin, J.P.; Donnenberg, A.D. Stromal vascular progenitors in adult human adipose tissue. Cytometry A 2010, 77, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Taqi, S.; Sami, S.; Sami, L.; Zaki, S. A review of artifacts in histopathology. J. Oral Maxillofac. Pathol. 2018, 22, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Surmi, B.; Hasty, A. Macrophage infiltration into adipose tissue: Initiation, propagation and remodeling. Future Lipidol. 2008, 3, 545–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Austyn, J.M.; Gordon, S. F4/80, a monoclonal antibody directed specifically against the mouse macrophage. Eur. J. Immunol. 1981, 11, 805–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Hamann, J.; Koning, N.; Pouwels, W.; Ulfman, L.H.; van Eijk, M.; Stacey, M.; Lin, H.; Gordon, S.; Kwakkenbos, M.J. EMR1, the human homolog of F4/80, is an eosinophil-specific receptor. Eur. J. Immunol. 2007, 37, 2797–2802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Chistiakov, D.A.; Killingsworth, M.C.; Myasoedova, V.A.; Orekhov, A.N.; Bobryshev, Y.V. CD68/macrosialin: Not just a histochemical marker. Lab. Investig. 2017, 97, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Nakajima, I.; Aso, H.; Yamaguchi, T.; Ozutsumi, K. Adipose tissue extracellular matrix: Newly organized by adipocytes during differentiation. Differentiation 1998, 63, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Poole, J.J.A.; Mostaço-Guidolin, L.B. Optical Microscopy and the Extracellular Matrix Structure: A Review. Cells 2021, 10, 1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Rickelt, S.; Hynes, R.O. Antibodies and methods for immunohistochemistry of extracellular matrix proteins. Matrix Biol. 2018, 71, 10–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Börgeson, E.; Boucher, J.; Hagberg, C.E. Of mice and men: Pinpointing species differences in adipose tissue biology. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022, 10, 1003118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Bicer, A. Nanofat Grafts Enhance Tendon Healing in a Chronic Achilles Tendinopathy Rat Model. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2024, 1, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Iyyanki, T.; Hubenak, J.; Liu, J.; Chang, E.I.; Beahm, E.K.; Zhang, Q. Harvesting Technique Affects Adipose-Derived Stem Cell Yield. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2015, 35, 467–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Schreml, S.; Babilas, P.; Fruth, S.; Orsó, E.; Schmitz, G.; Mueller, M.B.; Nerlich, M.; Prantl, L. Harvesting human adipose tissue-derived adult stem cells: Resection versus liposuction. Cytotherapy 2009, 11, 947–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Prantl, L.; Schreml, J.; Gehmert, S.; Klein, S.; Bai, X.; Zeitler, K.; Schreml, S.; Alt, E.; Gehmert, S.; Felthaus, O. Transcription Profile in Sporadic Multiple Symmetric Lipomatosis Reveals Differential Expression at the Level of Adipose Tissue–Derived Stem Cells. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2016, 137, 1181–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Huang, T.; He, D.; Kleiner, G.; Kuluz, J.T. Neuron-like Differentiation of Adipose-Derived Stem Cells from Infant Piglets in Vitro. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2007, 30, S35–S40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Suartz, C.V.; Gaiba, S.; França, J.P.D.; Aloise, A.C.; Ferreira, L.M. Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSC) in the viability of a random pattern dorsal skin flap in rats. Acta Cir. Bras. 2014, 29, 02–05. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Nguyen, A.; Guo, J.; Banyard, D.A.; Fadavi, D.; Toranto, J.D.; Wirth, G.A.; Paydar, K.Z.; Evans, G.R.D.; Widgerow, A.D. Stromal vascular fraction: A regenerative reality? Part 1: Current concepts and review of the literature. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2016, 69, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Kotlyarov, S.; Kotlyarova, A. Involvement of Fatty Acids and Their Metabolites in the Development of Inflammation in Atherosclerosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cells 14 00898 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram to identify the studies that fulfill the inclusion criteria [27].
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram to identify the studies that fulfill the inclusion criteria [27].
Cells 14 00898 g001
Cells 14 00898 g002
Figure 2. The column diagram demonstrates the frequency with which a specific staining method was employed. It should be noted that the sum of the percentages in this diagram does not equal 100% due to the utilization of multiple staining methods in numerous cases. Fifty-two percent of studies combined histological and immunohistochemical techniques to analyze both cellular and structural components of adipose tissue. The integration of these methods allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of tissue characteristics, though methodological variations were noted among studies.
Figure 2. The column diagram demonstrates the frequency with which a specific staining method was employed. It should be noted that the sum of the percentages in this diagram does not equal 100% due to the utilization of multiple staining methods in numerous cases. Fifty-two percent of studies combined histological and immunohistochemical techniques to analyze both cellular and structural components of adipose tissue. The integration of these methods allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of tissue characteristics, though methodological variations were noted among studies.
Cells 14 00898 g002
Cells 14 00898 g003
Figure 3. The column diagram demonstrates the frequency with which a specific antibody was used for immunohistochemistry. Single-marker immunohistochemistry was used in 33 studies and multiparametric techniques 57 times, while in 76 studies, no immunohistochemistry was assessed.
Figure 3. The column diagram demonstrates the frequency with which a specific antibody was used for immunohistochemistry. Single-marker immunohistochemistry was used in 33 studies and multiparametric techniques 57 times, while in 76 studies, no immunohistochemistry was assessed.
Cells 14 00898 g003
Cells 14 00898 g004
Figure 4. The column diagram demonstrates the frequency with which a processing method was employed.
Figure 4. The column diagram demonstrates the frequency with which a processing method was employed.
Cells 14 00898 g004
Cells 14 00898 g005
Figure 5. The graph illustrates the frequency with which the corresponding qualitative characteristics were evaluated among the studies (166).
Figure 5. The graph illustrates the frequency with which the corresponding qualitative characteristics were evaluated among the studies (166).
Cells 14 00898 g005
Cells 14 00898 g006
Figure 6. The graph illustrates the frequency with which the corresponding quantitative characteristics were evaluated among the studies (166).
Figure 6. The graph illustrates the frequency with which the corresponding quantitative characteristics were evaluated among the studies (166).
Cells 14 00898 g006
Cells 14 00898 g007
Figure 7. The graphic illustrates which markers are present in at least 50% of the circles they are included in, according to Thitilertdecha et al. (2020) [15]. The yellow circle represents ADSCs, the magenta circle represents pericytes, and the green circle represents EPCs. It should be noted that CD45 is outside all three circles, as it is specific to hematopoietic lineage cells. Additionally, a considerable number of markers are present in more than 50% of a subgroup in more than one subgroup, including CD13, CD34, CD90, and CD146.
Figure 7. The graphic illustrates which markers are present in at least 50% of the circles they are included in, according to Thitilertdecha et al. (2020) [15]. The yellow circle represents ADSCs, the magenta circle represents pericytes, and the green circle represents EPCs. It should be noted that CD45 is outside all three circles, as it is specific to hematopoietic lineage cells. Additionally, a considerable number of markers are present in more than 50% of a subgroup in more than one subgroup, including CD13, CD34, CD90, and CD146.
Cells 14 00898 g007
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria of this scoping review.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria of this scoping review.
CriteriaInclusionExclusion
Study TypeIn vitro and in vivo studies with histology of fat tissueCase reports, editorials, commentaries, reviews without original data, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses
PopulationAll human fat studies including animals transplanted with human fatAll animal fat studies
InterventionWhole tissue fatStudies focusing only on stem cells of the fat (SVF) and their histology or complex manipulated fat
Publication DateAll studies available (1972–2024)-
LanguagePublished in EnglishNon-English language studies, unless translated versions are available
Peer-reviewedStudies must be published in peer-reviewed journalsNon-peer-reviewed articles, conference abstracts, or unpublished theses
Table 2. The factors regarding the evaluation of quality and the staining protocols used in the included studies. C: Centrifugation; S: Sedimented; M: Mechanically processed; Sc: Scaffold *; F: Filtrated or washed; G: Gauze rolled; B: Biopsy; -: No comment **; MAs: Mature adipocytes; SVFCs: Stromal vascular fraction cells; V: Vessels or vascular progenitor cells; I: Inflammation; Cy: Cysts or vacuoles; N: Necrosis; Fi: Fibrosis; and CD: Cluster of differentiation. (i.e., * scaffold means all whole tissue fat derivatives that were mixed with ADSCs or SVFCs and all synthetic materials mixed with whole tissue fat. ** No comment means that the methodology employed in the preparation of the fat tissue was not documented or comprehensible.).
Table 2. The factors regarding the evaluation of quality and the staining protocols used in the included studies. C: Centrifugation; S: Sedimented; M: Mechanically processed; Sc: Scaffold *; F: Filtrated or washed; G: Gauze rolled; B: Biopsy; -: No comment **; MAs: Mature adipocytes; SVFCs: Stromal vascular fraction cells; V: Vessels or vascular progenitor cells; I: Inflammation; Cy: Cysts or vacuoles; N: Necrosis; Fi: Fibrosis; and CD: Cluster of differentiation. (i.e., * scaffold means all whole tissue fat derivatives that were mixed with ADSCs or SVFCs and all synthetic materials mixed with whole tissue fat. ** No comment means that the methodology employed in the preparation of the fat tissue was not documented or comprehensible.).
Autor/Year of PublicationTissueAnalyzed AttributesStaining Methods
Adanali et al., 2002 [28]CMAsSudan Black
Adem et al., 2022 [29]SV, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31
Afanas’eva et al., 2018 [30]-MAs, VHE
Agostini et al., 2012 [31]C MAs, N, FiHE, Sudan Black
Ansorge et al., 2014 [32]C, S, FMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE
Atanassova et al., 2001 [33]BMAs, SVFCsSudan III, Anti-S-100 (S-100-protein)
Bach-Mortensen et al., 1976 [34]BMAs, V, I, FiToluidine blue
Bae et al., 2015 [35]C, ScMAs, V, I, FiHE, Anti-CD31
Baker et al., 2009 [36]FMAs, VAnti-CD31
Bauer et al., 1995 [37]BMAs, V, I, FiHE
Bellas et al., 2013 [38]ScMAs, V, IHE, MT, Oil O Red
Bi et al., 2024 [39]CMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-CD206, Anti-MAC2 (Galectin-3)
Borrelli et al., 2020 [40]S, ScMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-F4/80 (EGF-like module containing, mucin-like, hormone receptor-like sequence 1)
Bryant et al., 1983 [41]BMAs, V, FiHE
Chai et al., 2023 [42]-MAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-Ki67 (Marker of Proliferation Ki-67)
Chajchir and Benzaquen et al., 1989 [43]-MAs, V, Cy, FiHE
Chen et al., 2021 [44]-MAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD34, Anti-Ki67, Anti-VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor)
Chen et al., 2022 [45]S, FMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31
Chen et al., 2022 [46]ScMAs, VHE, Anti-CD31
Chen et al., 2024 [47]FMAs, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-caspase3
Chia et al., 2015 [48]C, FMAs, NHE
Chung et al., 2019 [49]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31
Cicione et al., 2016 [50]CMAs, SVFCsHE, Sudan III
Cicione et al., 2023 [51]M, -MAs, SVFCsHE, Anti-PCNA (Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen), Anti-CD31, Anti-CD34, Anti-COLL1 (collagen)
Condé-Green et al., 2010 [24]C, SMAs, NHE, PAS-Reaction
Condé-Green et al., 2010 [23]C, SMAsHE, PAS-Reaction
Condé-Green et al., 2013 [52]C, S, ScMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE
Craft et al., 2009 [53]MMAs, I, Cy, FiMT, Anti-S-100
Cui and Pu et al., 2009 [54]CMAs, NHE
Cui and Pu et al., 2010 [55]CMAs, N, FiHE
Davis et al., 2013 [56]CMAs, FiHE
Debald et al., 2017 [57]FV, N, FiHE
Deleon et al., 2021 [58]SMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-perilipin
Dimitroulis et al., 2011 [59]-MAs, Cy, NHE
Dobran et al., 2017 [60]-FiHE
Dong et al., 2022 [61]Sc, GMAs, V, I, N, FiHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-perilipin, Anti-STEM 121 (Microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3 alpha)
Eigenberger et al., 2022 [20]C, S, MMAs, SVFCs, VHE
Eskalen et al., 2024 [62]CMAsHE, Anti-perilipin
Fan et al., 2023 [63]C, MMAs, V, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31
Ferguson et al., 2008 [64]C, FMAs, NHE
Filson et al., 2016 [65]CV, I, Cy, FiHE
Fisher et al., 2013 [66]C, F, GVAnti-CD31
Genç et al., 2022 [9]SMAs, I, Cy, N, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin
Girard et al., 2015 [67]C, SMAs, V, Cy, N, FiHE, MT
Ha et al., 2015 [68]C, ScCyHE
Hamed et al., 2010 [69]-MAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-CD68, Anti-VEGF, Anti-EPOR (erythropoietin receptor)
Hamed et al., 2012 [70]Sc, -MAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Mayer’s hematoxylin
Harris et al., 2019 [71]Sc, -MAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, Anti-CD31
He et al., 2019 [72]Sc, -MAs, V, I, FiHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-MAC2, Sirius Red
He et al., 2023 [73]C, MMAs, V, CyHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-Ki67
Herly et al., 2017 [74]-MAs, I, Cy, N, FiHE, van Gieson, Anti-CD68, Anti-PGM1 (phosphoglucomutase 1), Anti-S-100
Hersant et al., 2018 [75]CMAs, V, I, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-CD45
Hivernaud et al., 2017 [76]C, S, FI, Cy, FiHPS
Ho et al., 2022 [77]CMAs, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-F4/80, Anti-caspase3
Hoareau et al., 2013 [78]C, SMAs, FiHES, MT
Hsiao et al., 2021 [79]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-αSMA (Alpha-Smooth Muscle Actin)
Hu et al., 2018 [80]CMAs, V, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31
Huang et al., 2017 [81]S, ScMAs, V, Cy, FiHE, MT, Anti-CD31
Ichikawa et al., 2005 [82]BMAs, NHE
Janarthanan et al., 2023 [83]CMAs, V, I, Cy, NHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-perilipin, Anti-vimentin
Jia et al., 2024 [8]FMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31
Jiang et al., 2015 [84]C, S, M, Sc, F, G, B, -V, FiHE
Jiang et al., 2023 [85]SMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-CD206
Jin et al., 2021 [86]GMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31
Jung et al., 2014 [87]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31
Kakudo et al., 2013 [88]ScMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-vWF (von Willebrand factor)
Kamel et al., 2014 [89]C, FMAsHE
Kanamori et al., 2001 [90]BMAs, V, Cy, FiHE
Kelmendi-Doko, 2017 [91]CVHE, Anti-CD31
Kelmendi-Doko et al., 2014 [92]CVHE, Anti-CD31
Khater et al., 2009 [93]CMAs, SVFCs, V, I, Cy, NHE, Anti-cyclin D1, Anti-leptin
Kijima et al., 2012 [94]BMAs, N, FiHE, Oil O Red
Kim et al., 2018 [95]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-VEGF
Kim et al., 2022 [96]CMAs, VHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-perilipin
Kim et al., 2023 [97]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE
Kim et al., 2024 [98]C, ScMAs, V, I, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31
Kirkham et al., 2012 [99]CMAs, I, FiHE
Ko et al., 2011 [100]C, ScMAs, I, Cy, N, FiHE
Kokai et al., 2017 [101]CMAs, I, Cy, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin, Anti-F4/80,
Kuwahara et al., 2003 [102]-, LaserMAs, VHE
Lee et al., 2013 [103]CMAs, I, Cy, FiHE
Lei and Xiao et al., 2020 [104]CMAs, V, Cy, N, FiHE
Li et al., 2012 [105]CMAs, I, Cy, FiHE
Li et al., 2013 [106]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE
Li et al., 2014 [14]Sc, -MAs, V, I, N, FiHE, Anti-CD31
Li et al., 2015 [107]FMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE
Li et al., 2020 [108]FMAs, SVFCs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-CD206
Li et al., 2022 [109]CMAs, I, CyHE, Anti-perilipin
Li et al., 2024 [110]C, ScSVFCs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-VEGF
Li et al., 2024 [111]C, ScMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-vimentin, Anti-CD68
Li et al., 2024 [112]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-vWF
Liu et al., 2024 [113]GMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31
Loder et al., 2023 [114]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-perilipin, Anti-HIF-1-α (Hypoxia Inducible Factor 1), Sirius Red
Lu et al., 2009 [115]Sc, -MAs, V, N, FiHE, Anti-CD31
Luan et al., 2017 [116]CI, Cy, FiHE
Luo et al., 2015 [117]Sc, -MAs, V, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-vWF, Anti-VEGF
Lv et al., 2019 [118]CMAs, V, I, NHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-vWF, Anti-CD68
Major et al., 2023 [119]-MAs, V, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31
Martin-Ferrer et al., 1989 [120]-FiHE
Massiah et al., 2021 [121]CMAs, VHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-Ki67
Mecott et al., 2022 [122]-MAsFluorescence microscopy
Medina et al., 2009 [123]CMAs, I, Cy, FiHE
Medina et al., 2011 [124]CI, Cy, FiHE
Merrifield et al., 2018 [11]CMAs, SVFCs, V, I, CyHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD34, Anti-CD24, Anti-CD68, Anti-Ki67
Minn et al., 2010 [125]C, F, GV, I, NHE
Mojallal et al., 2011 [126]C, ScMAs, V, Cy, FiHPS, Oil O Red, Anti-vimentin
Nelissen et al., 2023 [127]C, SMAs, I, Cy, FiHE, MT
Nguyen et al., 2012 [128]CMAs, V, NHES, Anti-CD31
Nicoli et al., 2014 [129]SMAsHE, MT
Nie et al., 2023 [130]-MAs, I, Cy, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin
Nie et al., 2024 [131]CMAs, V, I, NHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-CD206, Anti-Ki67, Anti-CD86
Niechajev and Śevćuk et al., 1994 [132]FMAs, I, FiHE
Niță et al., 2013 [133]CMAs, SVFCs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-DLK1(delta-like 1 homolog)
Oh et al., 2011 [134]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31
Olenczak et al., 2017 [135]C, ScMAs, I, Cy, FiHE
Paik et al., 2015 [136]C, ScMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31
Palumbo et al., 2015 [137]C, SMAsHE, Anti-vimentin
Park et al., 2013 [138]BI, Cy, N, FiHE
Park et al., 2017 [139]C, ScV, I, Cy, N, FiHE, MT
Pelosi et al., 2017 [140]BMAs, VAnti-perilipin
Philips et al., 2013 [141]CMAs, V, Cy, FiHE, Anti-CD31
Por et al., 2009 [142]CMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiOil O Red
Pu et al., 2008 [143]CMAs, NHE
Pu et al., 2010 [144]CMAs, NHE
Ragni et al., 2022 [145]C, MSVFCs, VHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-CD90, Anti-CD146
Ramon et al., 2005 [146]C, FMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE
Reddy et al., 2016 [147]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-vimentin
Säljö et al., 2020 [10]M, ScMAs, SVFCs, V, FiHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-CD90
Sesé et al., 2020 [148]C, MMAs, SVFCsHE, MT
Sheng et al., 2022 [149]C, GMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, Anti-CD31, Anti-CD68
Shoshani et al., 2000 [150]CI, Cy, FiHE
Shoshani et al., 2001 [151]CMAs, I, Cy, FiHE
Shoshani et al., 2005 [152]CMAs, I, Cy, FiHE
Skorobac Asanin and Sopta et al., 2017 [153]CMAs, VHE
Smith et al., 2006 [154]CMAs, I, Cy, N, FiHE
Sun et al., 2023 [155]CMAs, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-F4/80, Anti-CD206, Anti-MAC2, Anti-CD11c
Szychta et al., 2024 [156]CMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE
Teng et al., 2014 [157]CMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE
Tong et al., 2018 [158]GCyHE
Tran et al., 2024 [25]C, MMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-F4/80
Ullmann et al., 2006 [159]CMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE
Van Dongen et al., 2020 [160]C, MMAs, SVFCs, VMT, Anti-CD31, Anti-αSMA
Von Heimburg and Pallua et al., 2001 [161]SMAs, I, Cy, FiHE
Wang et al., 2015 [162]FMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE
Wei et al., 2019 [163]CMAs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31
Weisz and Gal, 1986 [164]BMAs, VHE
Wu et al., 2020 [165]CMAs, V, I, CyHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31
Wu et al., 2023 [166]C, MMAs, V, I, CyHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-MAC2, Anti-CD206
Xia et al., 2021 [167]Sc, -MAs, V, Cy, NHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-UCP1 (uncoupling protein 1)
Xie et al., 2010 [168]CMAsHE
Xiong et al., 2018 [169]CV, FiHE
Xu et al., 2014 [170]-MAs, V, I, N, FiHE
Yagima Odo et al., 2007 [171]BI, N, FiHE
Yang et al., 2021 [172]C, M, GMAs HE, Anti-perilipin
Yang et al., 2023 [173]Sc, -V, I, Cy, FiHE, MT, Anti-CD31, Anti-αSMA, Anti-HIF-1α, Anti-VEGF
Yang et al., 2024 [174]C, ScMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-αSMA, Anti-MAC2
Yi et al., 2006 [175]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-vWF
Yi et al., 2007 [176]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-vWF
Yu et al., 2018 [177]S, MMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, MT, Anti-CD31
Yu et al., 2020 [178]C MAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin, Anti- αSMA
Yu et al., 2020 [13]C, ScMAs, V, Cy, NHE, von Kossa, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31, Anti-αSMA, Anti-Ki67, Anti-VEGF, Anti-ANA (antinuclear), Anti-TNFα (tumor necrosis factor α)
Yu et al., 2021 [179]CMAs, V, I, Cy, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin, Anti- αSMA
Zhan et al., 2017 [180]Sc, -MAs, VHE, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD31
Zhang et al., 2018 [181]C, MMAs, SVFCs, V, I, Cy, N, FiHE, MT, Anti-perilipin, Anti-CD206, Anti-MAC2, Anti-HLA
Zhao et al., 2023 [182]M, ScMAsHE
Zhu et al., 2021 [183]C, MMAs, I, Cy, FiHE, Anti-perilipin
Table 3. Summary of all the recommended stainings for certain cellular equivalents or complications (SVF: stromal vascular fraction; MAs: mature adipocytes; ECM: extracellular matrix; H&E: hematoxylin eosin; and IHC: immunohistochemistry).
Table 3. Summary of all the recommended stainings for certain cellular equivalents or complications (SVF: stromal vascular fraction; MAs: mature adipocytes; ECM: extracellular matrix; H&E: hematoxylin eosin; and IHC: immunohistochemistry).
Tissue PreparationPreservation of ArchitectureEvaluable Histological TargetsRecommended StainsSpecific Characteristics/Limitations
LipoaspirateLowSVFH&E, IHCFragmented, non-coherent mixture; vessel and ECM structures disrupted; interpretation of inflammation and fibrosis unreliable
MAsPerilipin, Oil O Red
ECMMasson Trichrome
Vascularization/Vessel IntegrityAnti-CD31, Anti-αSMAEnables analysis of neovascularization and graft viability
Surgically Excised Fat (including explants)HighSVF, MAs, ECM, and VesselsSee aboveThe same reasons are applicable for surgically excised fat as for lipoaspirate
FibrosisMasson Trichrome, H&E-SaffronEnables semiquantitative scoring (e.g., 0–5 scale)
Inflammation/Immune Cell InfiltrationH&E, Anti-CD68, Anti-F4/80
Oil Cysts/VacuolesOil O Red, Sudan stains
NecrosisH&E, Anti-HIF-1α
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schimanski, T.; Loucas, R.; Loucas, M.; Felthaus, O.; Brébant, V.; Klein, S.; Anker, A.; Frank, K.; Siegmund, A.; Pagani, A.; et al. Histology and Immunohistochemistry of Adipose Tissue: A Scoping Review on Staining Methods and Their Informative Value. Cells 2025, 14, 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14120898

AMA Style

Schimanski T, Loucas R, Loucas M, Felthaus O, Brébant V, Klein S, Anker A, Frank K, Siegmund A, Pagani A, et al. Histology and Immunohistochemistry of Adipose Tissue: A Scoping Review on Staining Methods and Their Informative Value. Cells. 2025; 14(12):898. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14120898

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schimanski, Tom, Rafael Loucas, Marios Loucas, Oliver Felthaus, Vanessa Brébant, Silvan Klein, Alexandra Anker, Konstantin Frank, Andreas Siegmund, Andrea Pagani, and et al. 2025. "Histology and Immunohistochemistry of Adipose Tissue: A Scoping Review on Staining Methods and Their Informative Value" Cells 14, no. 12: 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14120898

APA Style

Schimanski, T., Loucas, R., Loucas, M., Felthaus, O., Brébant, V., Klein, S., Anker, A., Frank, K., Siegmund, A., Pagani, A., Geis, S., Diesch, S. T., Eigenberger, A., & Prantl, L. (2025). Histology and Immunohistochemistry of Adipose Tissue: A Scoping Review on Staining Methods and Their Informative Value. Cells, 14(12), 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14120898

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop