Liposmart

Clinical Applications

Clinical applications.
A tissue perspective.

What microfragmented adipose tissue may contribute, where it has been studied, and how to interpret the outcomes.

Explore seven clinical fields through their therapeutic aims, the tissue concept and the clinical evidence. See where findings are encouraging, where they differ, and what still needs to be established.

Explore the clinical fieldsEvidence at a glance
Conceptual adipose tissue microenvironment with adipocytes, connective matrix and small vessels
Cells, microvessels and matrix · an illustrative tissue perspective, not a measured treatment result.

01 / THE TISSUE CONCEPT

Why the tissue environment matters.

The question is not only which cells are present, but how they remain connected to their surrounding tissue.

Microfragmented adipose tissue, explained.

Adipose tissue includes fat cells, resident stromal and immune cells, small vessels and extracellular matrix. Mechanical processing can produce smaller tissue fragments while retaining elements of this architecture. The resulting material remains a heterogeneous tissue preparation, rather than a purified stem-cell population.[1][2]

01

A structural context

Cells sit within a matrix and a perivascular environment. Laboratory work has characterized these relationships after processing; the findings depend on the preparation and methods used.[1]

02

A signalling hypothesis

Secretory activity and effects in endothelial and inflammatory-cell models provide reasons to investigate local tissue interactions. Laboratory observations do not predict a clinical response on their own.[2][3]

03

A clinical test

The decisive question is whether a specified intervention improves a meaningful outcome compared with an appropriate alternative. Patient selection, processing, associated treatment and follow-up all matter.

MFAT

Mechanically processed adipose tissue with retained tissue components. Different systems and protocols can produce different preparations.

Read the preparation, not just the acronym.

Cellular SVF, matrix-associated tissue SVF, MFAT and expanded stromal cells are not defined by the same processing steps. Some tissue terms overlap. Compare the actual preparation before comparing outcomes.

Conventional fat grafts

Evidence for volume restoration and reconstructive fat transfer is valuable context, but does not establish a benefit from microfragmentation.

02 / AN EVIDENCE LANDSCAPE

Different fields.
Different questions.

A useful reading of the literature starts with the tissue preparation, the study design and the clinical setting.

Clinical fields and evidence context
Clinical fieldEvidence contextClinical aim & research setting
Joints & osteoarthritisMFAT trials · mixed resultsReduce joint pain and improve daily function in a defined osteoarthritis population.Knee osteoarthritis; other joints require their own evidence.
Tendons & sports medicineMFAT trials · context specificImprove symptoms and functional recovery within a specified tendon-care or surgical pathway.Rotator-cuff repair and selected shoulder conditions.
Plastic & reconstructive surgeryRelated fat-grafting evidenceRestore a selected soft-tissue deficit and improve contour and patient-reported satisfaction.Soft-tissue volume, contour and reconstructive outcomes.
Skin, scars & tissue qualityRelated preparations · limited transferabilityImprove a defined scar problem, including pliability, discomfort, tethering or patient-rated appearance.Scar quality, pliability and tissue remodelling research.
Wounds & vascular tissue healthMFAT trial · selected wound settingImprove complete healing in a selected wound setting while maintaining infection and vascular care.Healing after diabetic-foot minor amputation; related digital-ulcer research.
Colorectal & perianal diseaseMFAT studies · emerging randomized dataAchieve sustained clinical and radiological fistula healing while protecting continence.Complex anal fistulas, including selected refractory Crohn’s perianal disease.
Urology & gynaecologyExploratory clinical researchAssess a specific urinary or vulvovaginal symptom using validated measures and an appropriate comparator.Stress incontinence, vulvovaginal symptoms and bladder-pain research.

These are editorial descriptions of selected evidence, not formal GRADE ratings or a ranking of clinical suitability. The library includes positive, negative and exploratory findings checked on 29 October 2026; it is not a systematic review.

03 / EXPLORE A CLINICAL FIELD

From biological interest
to a measurable outcome.

Select a field to explore the clinical aim, biological rationale, study design and implications for a balanced clinical discussion. The clinical studies summarized here are broader literature, not Liposmart outcome trials.

FIELD 01 / 07

Joints & osteoarthritis

Knee osteoarthritis; other joints require their own evidence.

MFAT trials · mixed results
Conceptual knee cutaway showing joint surfaces, supporting structures and an infrapatellar fat pad

THE CLINICAL AIM

Reduce joint pain and improve daily function in a defined osteoarthritis population.

Symptom relief, function and the value of an added procedure.

MFAT has been investigated as an intra-articular intervention for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The relevant outcomes are pain, daily function and quality of life. Symptom improvement and cartilage restoration are different claims.

Why adipose tissue is being investigated

The research hypothesis concerns local tissue signalling and modulation of the joint environment. It is different from claiming that injected tissue directly rebuilds cartilage.[3]

Pain & daily functionQuality of lifeDurability of response

What the studies report

A positive saline-controlled trial

75 randomized · MFAT / saline / corticosteroid · 12 months

Richter and colleagues randomized 75 patients among MFAT, corticosteroid and saline. The partially blinded study reported better pain and functional outcomes with MFAT than saline through one year.[4]

A larger placebo-controlled trial

120 randomized · MFAT versus saline · 24 months

Barfod and colleagues randomized 120 patients, with adipose harvest in both groups. MFAT did not outperform saline at the assessed time points over two years; both groups improved.[5]

A newer active-comparator trial

60 randomized · MFAT versus triamcinolone · 12 months

A 2026 double-blind trial of 60 patients reported more sustained improvement with MFAT than triamcinolone at 12 months. Its comparator and population differ from the saline-controlled studies.[6]

Comparison with another orthobiologic

71 randomized; 49 completed · MFAT versus PRP · 12 months

Baria and colleagues found improvement in both groups, with no significant difference in KOOS pain at twelve months. Loss to follow-up limits interpretation. A nonsignificant difference does not by itself prove equivalence or superiority.[21]

What this may mean clinically

Several trials report pain and functional improvement, but comparative results are inconsistent. The clinical discussion should weigh the possible symptomatic benefit, the fat-harvest procedure and alternatives. The current evidence does not establish that MFAT is routinely better than PRP.

Where the evidence stops

These studies do not establish predictable cartilage regrowth, reversal of osteoarthritis or avoidance of joint replacement. Knee findings should not automatically be extended to hip, ankle or hand conditions.

Standard-care context: therapeutic exercise and, where appropriate, weight management remain central to osteoarthritis care. An MFAT discussion should not displace those measures.[24]

Conceptual anatomical illustration · open the image to inspect it at a larger size.

View the source library

FIELD 02 / 07

Tendons & sports medicine

Rotator-cuff repair and selected shoulder conditions.

MFAT trials · context specific
Conceptual shoulder illustration showing the humeral head, scapula and rotator-cuff region

THE CLINICAL AIM

Improve symptoms and functional recovery within a specified tendon-care or surgical pathway.

A possible early functional benefit after repair.

Research includes MFAT used during rotator-cuff surgery and exploratory injections for refractory shoulder symptoms. Results from a surgical adjunct cannot be treated as proof that an injection alone heals a torn tendon.

Why adipose tissue is being investigated

Matrix-associated tissue and its secretory activity provide a biological rationale for studying MFAT as an adjunct to host repair. Structural tendon continuity and rehabilitation remain separate determinants of recovery.[2][7]

Pain & shoulder functionRecovery after repairTendon integrity on imaging

What the studies report

A randomized surgical study

44 completing follow-up · MFAT plus repair versus repair · 24 months

In a trial with 44 patients completing follow-up, MFAT augmentation of rotator-cuff repair improved the Constant–Murley score at six months. There were no significant clinical differences at the other reported follow-ups, or in retear rates.[7]

Exploratory nonsurgical research

10 participants · uncontrolled pilot · 6 and 12 months

A ten-person pilot in wheelchair users with spinal cord injury reported improvement in shoulder pain and function at six and twelve months. The absence of a control group limits causal interpretation.[8]

What this may mean clinically

The randomized rotator-cuff study supports a possible early functional advantage when MFAT accompanies repair. That is a more specific and useful expectation than promising generalized tendon regeneration. Nonsurgical shoulder findings remain preliminary.

Where the evidence stops

A durable reduction in retear risk, predictable tendon regeneration and a faster return to sport have not been established by these studies. Findings should not be generalized to every tendinopathy.

Conceptual anatomical illustration · open the image to inspect it at a larger size.

View the source library

FIELD 03 / 07

Plastic & reconstructive surgery

Soft-tissue volume, contour and reconstructive outcomes.

Related fat-grafting evidence
Conceptual soft-tissue cutaway showing skin, adipose lobules, fascia and muscle

THE CLINICAL AIM

Restore a selected soft-tissue deficit and improve contour and patient-reported satisfaction.

Autologous volume with a defined reconstructive purpose.

Autologous fat transfer is used to address soft-tissue volume and contour. This reconstructive literature is relevant context, but conventional fat grafting, MFAT and different processing systems are not interchangeable interventions.

Why adipose tissue is being investigated

Here adipose tissue has a structural role: it provides autologous soft-tissue volume. The relevant questions include retained volume, tissue quality, recipient-site conditions and the burden of staged treatment.[9][22]

Contour & retained volumePatient-reported satisfactionFurther procedures & complications

What the studies report

Randomized evidence for conventional fat transfer

Staged fat transfer plus expansion versus implants · 12 months after final surgery

The multicentre BREAST trial compared staged autologous fat transfer with external expansion against implant reconstruction after mastectomy. It reported higher scores in three of five BREAST-Q domains at twelve months after final surgery.[9]

Keep the intervention in view

Staged fat transfer plus expansion versus implants · 12 months after final surgery

That trial studied a specific reconstructive programme, excluded patients receiving postmastectomy radiotherapy, and often involved several procedures. It was not a Liposmart trial or a test of microfragmentation as the cause of benefit.[9]

What this may mean clinically

Conventional fat transfer can provide a useful reconstruction in selected patients, with benefits in satisfaction and physical well-being reported in the BREAST programme. Discuss the intended correction, variable retention and the possibility of staged procedures; this is not proof that microfragmentation improves those outcomes.

Where the evidence stops

Conventional fat-transfer outcomes do not demonstrate that MFAT is superior, that one preparation system retains more volume, or that any tissue-processing device has a particular breast indication. Product selection and oncological follow-up remain case specific.

Conceptual anatomical illustration · open the image to inspect it at a larger size.

View the source library

FIELD 04 / 07

Skin, scars & tissue quality

Scar quality, pliability and tissue remodelling research.

Related preparations · limited transferability
Conceptual skin cross-section with a mature linear scar, connective tissue and underlying adipose tissue

THE CLINICAL AIM

Improve a defined scar problem, including pliability, discomfort, tethering or patient-rated appearance.

Pliability and symptoms, measured over time.

Adipose-derived preparations have been investigated for scar appearance and tissue quality. Studies use different materials, including conventional fat grafts, tissue stromal vascular fraction and other mechanically processed preparations. The name of the tissue matters.

Why adipose tissue is being investigated

Scar studies investigate tissue remodelling and changes in tissue mechanics, not simply added volume. Validated scar assessments and objective measures help distinguish a meaningful change from a cosmetic impression.[10][23]

Scar appearance & pliabilitySymptoms & tetheringDurability of change

What the studies report

A controlled study with tissue SVF

40 enrolled; 34 completed · tissue SVF versus placebo within patient · 12 months

A randomized within-patient study enrolled 40 mammoplasty patients; 34 completed follow-up. Tissue stromal vascular fraction improved questionnaire-assessed scar appearance at six months, but not at twelve months. Photographic and histological assessments did not show a group advantage.[10]

A different fat-processing approach

43 women · elliptical centrifugation versus Coleman preparation · 12 months

A 2025 randomized study in second-stage breast reconstruction reported better scar-related outcomes and tissue softness after additional elliptical centrifugation. It studied a different fat-processing technique, not Liposmart or MFAT as a standardized intervention.[23]

What this may mean clinically

Controlled studies of related fat-derived preparations provide signals of better scar quality or tissue softness in specific settings. Their results differ by processing method and time point. Set a measurable target for the particular scar rather than a broad skin-rejuvenation claim.

Where the evidence stops

Neither study validates Liposmart-prepared MFAT or establishes scar elimination. Terms such as nanofat, tissue SVF and MFAT do not guarantee equivalent preparations; the actual processing method, tissue architecture and composition must be compared.

Conceptual anatomical illustration · open the image to inspect it at a larger size.

View the source library

FIELD 05 / 07

Wounds & vascular tissue health

Healing after diabetic-foot minor amputation; related digital-ulcer research.

MFAT trial · selected wound setting
Conceptual non-graphic wound cross-section showing skin layers, microvessels and subcutaneous adipose tissue

THE CLINICAL AIM

Improve complete healing in a selected wound setting while maintaining infection and vascular care.

An adjunctive healing signal in a defined population.

The biological interest concerns the local tissue environment, microvascular support and healing. A wound study in a selected surgical population cannot establish that adipose tissue treats peripheral arterial disease or replaces vascular care.

Why adipose tissue is being investigated

Research focuses on the local tissue environment, matrix and microvascular interactions. These mechanisms are biologically plausible, but they do not remove the need for adequate perfusion and comprehensive wound care.[3][11][13]

Complete wound healingTime to closure & recurrenceInfection & limb outcomes

What the studies report

A defined diabetic-foot population

114 randomized · MFAT plus standard care versus standard care · 6 months

The single-centre, unblinded MiFrAADiF trial randomized 114 patients undergoing minor amputation. At six months, healing was reported in 80% of MFAT-treated feet versus 46% with standard care. This is a study-specific finding, not a general ulcer-healing rate.[11]

Related evidence uses another preparation

38 patients · centrifuged fat versus sham · 8 weeks

A 38-patient randomized study reported improved digital-ulcer healing in systemic sclerosis after regional grafting of centrifuged adipose tissue. It did not study MFAT and cannot be treated as Liposmart evidence.[12]

What this may mean clinically

The postoperative MiFrAADiF findings provide a clinical signal worth testing in appropriately selected wound populations. The discussion should place the potential adjunctive benefit within a multidisciplinary plan for perfusion, infection, pressure relief and metabolic care.

Where the evidence stops

Do not extrapolate postoperative findings to all chronic ulcers, claim restoration of arterial blood flow, or present MFAT as a substitute for revascularization, infection treatment or offloading.

Standard-care context: IWGDF/IDSA guidance emphasizes wound care, offloading, vascular assessment and metabolic control alongside infection management.[13]

Conceptual anatomical illustration · open the image to inspect it at a larger size.

View the source library

FIELD 06 / 07

Colorectal & perianal disease

Complex anal fistulas, including selected refractory Crohn’s perianal disease.

MFAT studies · emerging randomized data
Conceptual lower rectal and sphincter anatomy with surrounding soft tissue and adipose compartments

THE CLINICAL AIM

Achieve sustained clinical and radiological fistula healing while protecting continence.

An emerging adjunct to specialist fistula management.

MFAT has been studied alongside specialist surgical management of complex fistulas. Drainage, internal-opening management and the underlying disease influence outcome. Evidence for expanded cell medicines is a separate evidence stream.

Why adipose tissue is being investigated

The studied approach adds adipose tissue to a specialist treatment pathway addressing sepsis, the fistula and underlying disease. Its proposed role is to support local healing alongside that care.[14][15][16]

Clinical & MRI remissionRecurrence & reinterventionContinence & quality of life

What the studies report

Published pilot and long-term follow-up

19-patient pilot and separate 15-patient follow-up cohort · uncontrolled · up to mean 6.7 years

A 19-patient pilot combined MFAT with internal-opening closure. A separate 15-patient Crohn’s cohort reported sustained remission in most initial responders at a mean 6.7-year follow-up, with rescue treatments in some patients. Neither was a randomized comparison.[14][15]

ATTIC: a 2026 conference abstract

66 completing follow-up · randomized surgical pathway · 24 weeks · conference abstract

Among 66 patients completing 24 weeks, the randomized ATTIC report described combined remission in 57.6% with MFAT versus 18.2% in controls, within a surgical treatment pathway. This is a conference abstract, not a full trial report; quality-of-life changes were largely similar between groups.[16]

What this may mean clinically

Published cohorts and the ATTIC abstract support further investigation of MFAT as an adjunct in selected complex fistulas, including refractory perianal Crohn’s disease. The relevant outcome is durable healing, assessed clinically and radiologically, with recurrence and further treatment recorded.

Where the evidence stops

These data do not establish a stand-alone cure, apply to every fistula, or validate Liposmart for Crohn’s disease. Published MFAT cohorts and conference results should not be conflated with trials of enzymatically isolated or culture-expanded cells.

Conceptual anatomical illustration · open the image to inspect it at a larger size.

View the source library

FIELD 07 / 07

Urology & gynaecology

Stress incontinence, vulvovaginal symptoms and bladder-pain research.

Exploratory clinical research
Conceptual bladder, urethra and pelvic supporting tissues, with surrounding adipose compartments

THE CLINICAL AIM

Assess a specific urinary or vulvovaginal symptom using validated measures and an appropriate comparator.

Feasibility and symptom signals, with separate research targets.

Early studies have investigated adipose tissue for urinary and vulvovaginal symptoms. Continence, pain, mucosal symptoms and sexual-function scores are distinct outcomes; a positive observation in one should not be extended to the others.

Why adipose tissue is being investigated

Periurethral tissue support, vulvovaginal tissue quality and bladder-wall symptoms are different research targets. They require different populations and endpoints rather than a single urogenital efficacy claim.[17][18]

Validated symptom scoresContinence & bladder functionSafety & durability

What the studies report

Small observational MFAT series

10 women · mixed diagnoses · uncontrolled case series

A ten-woman case series reported symptom improvements after MFAT treatment for a mixed group of vulvovaginal and stress-incontinence complaints. Its small size, mixed diagnoses and lack of a comparator prevent reliable efficacy estimates.[17]

A newer bladder-pain pilot

20 patients · retrospective pilot · no comparator · 6 months

A 2026 retrospective study of 20 patients reported symptom and bladder-function changes after micronized adipose tissue treatment. All patients also underwent hydrodistension. The uncontrolled design cannot separate the effects of these interventions or placebo response.[18]

What this may mean clinically

The small studies report feasibility and symptom changes that justify controlled research. That supports a research conversation, not a dependable individual response estimate. Continence, vulvovaginal symptoms and bladder pain should each be assessed separately.

Where the evidence stops

Do not promise continence, relief of chronic bladder pain or ‘intimate rejuvenation’. Preparation methods differ; the bladder-pain pilot used another device. Small studies also cannot characterize uncommon complications.

Conceptual anatomical illustration · open the image to inspect it at a larger size.

View the source library

Illustrations were created for this page to match the Liposmart product artwork. They are conceptual, are not patient images or before-and-after results, and do not show an injection technique or claim tissue regeneration.

04 / THE LIPOSMART CONTEXT

Three questions.
Three different kinds of evidence.

Biological rationale, device performance and clinical efficacy answer different questions. A credible discussion keeps them connected without treating them as substitutes for one another.

What is the device for?

The January 2026 chamber Instructions for Use describe processing lipoaspirated adipose tissue for autologous implantation and list several surgical specialties. Listing a specialty does not establish efficacy for a specific disease. Current product-specific and local documentation governs use.[19]

What does Liposmart evidence show?

The supplied laboratory report addresses the viability and structure of processed tissue. It is not a randomized outcome study and does not demonstrate pain relief, wound healing or disease modification in patients.[20]

What does broader research add?

Broader studies help define relevant clinical aims, comparators and endpoints. Their results remain specific to the preparation and treatment studied; they cannot be transferred into a Liposmart success rate.

Device characteristics are not a biological dose. Nominal chamber capacity and filter aperture describe device characteristics. They do not, by themselves, define a graft’s biological dose or a condition-specific optimal preparation.[19]

Science & evidenceExplore the product systems

05 / A RESPONSIBLE CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Set the question before
setting the expectation.

What should be defined?

  1. The clinical problem. A precise diagnosis, baseline severity and a meaningful goal.
  2. The preparation. Which tissue, processing system and associated intervention are actually being discussed?
  3. The comparison. Would the expected outcome differ from rehabilitation, standard care, surgery or placebo?
  4. The follow-up. Which validated measure, at which time point, will define a worthwhile change?
  5. The alternatives and uncertainty. The possibility of no benefit, the burden of treatment and the available established options.

Keep safety in the picture.

Autologous tissue still requires harvesting and an application procedure. Small feasibility studies cannot rule out uncommon harms. Reported events in the selected studies include harvest-site haematoma, abscess and application-specific complications.[14][18] Broader fat-grafting risks include fat necrosis, contour irregularity and, in certain settings, serious embolic complications. The risk profile depends on the anatomical site and technique; a small study with no serious events does not establish zero risk.[22]

Suitability depends on the procedure, recipient site, comorbidities, medicines and local requirements. The chamber Instructions for Use require trained physicians and address limitations associated with harvesting, processing and grafting, including coagulation-related concerns.[19]

What does “regenerative” mean here?

It describes an area of biological and clinical investigation. On this page it is not a promise of regrowing cartilage, restoring a tendon, reversing ageing or curing a disease. Tissue viability, changes in laboratory markers and improvement in a clinical endpoint are separate observations.

Why are some fields only contextual?

Broad clinical literature includes conventional fat transfer, tissue SVF, isolated cells, combined surgery and multiple processing devices. We retain those distinctions so a positive study does not become a claim for a different material or device.

06 / SELECTED EVIDENCE & DOCUMENTATION

Follow the evidence
back to its source.

Each study summary links to the primary publication or documentation. Publication type and limits are shown beside the reference.

24 sources
  1. 01

    Bianchi et al. · 2013

    Nonenzymatic processing and the perivascular architecture of adipose tissue

    Cell Transplantation 22:2063–2077

    Laboratory · Lipogems

    Histological and cellular characterization; not a clinical efficacy study.

  2. 02

    Vezzani et al. · 2018

    Pericyte content and secretory activity of microfragmented tissue

    Stem Cells Translational Medicine 7:876–886

    Laboratory · Lipogems

    Culture and comparative laboratory findings; not a patient outcome.

  3. 03

    Ceserani et al. · 2016

    Microfragmented fat in endothelial and inflammatory-cell models

    Vascular Cell 8:3

    Laboratory · Lipogems

    Conditioned-media experiments support mechanistic questions, not disease-treatment claims.

  4. 04

    Richter et al. · 2025

    Knee OA: MFAT compared with saline and corticosteroid

    Arthroscopy 41:248–260

    Partially blinded randomized trial · 75 patients

    Positive pain and function findings against saline through one year.

  5. 05

    Barfod et al. · 2025

    Knee OA: MFAT compared with saline over two years

    British Journal of Sports Medicine 59:1219–1227

    Blinded randomized trial · 120 patients

    No superiority over saline at the assessed time points.

  6. 06

    Varone et al. · 2026

    Knee OA: MFAT compared with triamcinolone at one year

    Journal of Cartilage & Joint Preservation · 100315

    Double-blind randomized trial · 60 patients

    Active-comparator study in patients indicated for arthroplasty; not a saline comparison.

  7. 07

    Randelli et al. · 2022

    MFAT as an adjunct to arthroscopic rotator-cuff repair

    American Journal of Sports Medicine

    Randomized trial · 44 completing follow-up

    Six-month functional advantage; no significant retear-rate difference.

  8. 08

    Hogaboom et al. · 2021

    MFAT for refractory shoulder symptoms in wheelchair users

    Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine

    Uncontrolled pilot · 10 participants

    Specific population; improvement from baseline does not establish comparative efficacy.

  9. 09

    Piatkowski et al. · 2023

    BREAST trial: staged fat transfer versus implant reconstruction

    JAMA Surgery 158:456–464

    Randomized trial · conventional fat transfer

    Fat transfer plus external expansion; not MFAT or Liposmart-specific evidence.

  10. 10

    van Dongen et al. · 2022

    Tissue stromal vascular fraction and postoperative scar quality

    Aesthetic Surgery Journal 42:NP477–NP488

    Randomized within-patient trial · 40 enrolled

    Six-month questionnaire difference was not sustained at twelve months. Preparation differs from MFAT.

  11. 11

    Lonardi et al. · 2019

    MiFrAADiF: MFAT after diabetic-foot minor amputation

    Stem Cell Research & Therapy

    Single-centre unblinded randomized trial · 114 patients

    Lipogems preparation in a defined postoperative population, alongside standard care.

  12. 12

    Del Papa et al. · 2019

    Regional adipose grafting for systemic-sclerosis digital ulcers

    Arthritis Research & Therapy 21:7

    Randomized study · 38 patients · centrifuged fat

    Related adipose-grafting research, not MFAT or Liposmart evidence.

  13. 13

    IWGDF / IDSA · 2023

    Diabetes-related foot infection and multidisciplinary care

    Intersociety clinical guideline

    Standard-care context

    Provides care context; does not endorse Liposmart or establish an MFAT indication.

  14. 14

    Naldini et al. · 2018

    MFAT combined with surgery for complex anal fistula

    Techniques in Coloproctology 22:107–113

    Uncontrolled pilot · 19 patients

    Combined intervention; the contribution of MFAT cannot be isolated.

  15. 15

    Laureti et al. · 2025

    Long-term follow-up of a refractory Crohn’s perianal cohort

    Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

    Follow-up of 15-patient pilot · mean 6.7 years

    Long-term observation of a small uncontrolled cohort, including rescue treatment.

  16. 16

    Laureti et al. · ATTIC investigators · 2026

    ATTIC: randomized results in refractory Crohn’s perianal fistulas

    Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis 20, Supplement 1 · P0772

    Conference abstract · 66 completing 24 weeks

    Abstract-level reporting; not a full randomized-trial article. Study used another processing system.

  17. 17

    Stark et al. · 2020

    MFAT in vulvovaginal symptoms and stress urinary incontinence

    EMJ Urology 8:29–37

    Observational case series · 10 women

    Mixed diagnoses and no comparison group; hypothesis-generating findings.

  18. 18

    Cervigni et al. · 2026

    Micronized adipose tissue for refractory bladder-pain syndrome

    Biomedicines 14:1119

    Retrospective uncontrolled pilot · 20 patients

    Matrigen preparation; concomitant hydrodistension and multiple exploratory outcomes.

  19. 19

    Liposmart manufacturer documentation · 2026

    Chamber Instructions for Use · revision 5, January 2026

    Device documentation

    Intended-purpose context

    Lists surgical specialties; does not establish disease-specific efficacy or replace current local labeling.

  20. 20

    Carlo Ventura · INBB laboratory report · 2023

    Characterization of Liposmart-processed adipose tissue

    Report dated 21 September 2023

    Liposmart-specific laboratory report · not a peer-reviewed clinical trial

    Laboratory characterization, not a clinical outcome trial or a disease-specific efficacy demonstration.

  21. 21

    Baria et al. · 2024

    Knee OA: randomized comparison of MFAT and PRP

    Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 12:23259671241233916

    Randomized trial · 71 randomized; 49 completing 12 months

    No significant between-group difference at twelve months. Absence of a difference does not alone establish equivalence.

  22. 22

    International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · Current web resource

    Fat transfer: procedure context and site-dependent risks

    Professional society patient information

    General fat-grafting context · not an MFAT clinical trial

    Discusses structural goals, graft retention and complications. Risk varies by anatomical site and technique.

  23. 23

    Vinci et al. · 2025

    Scar outcomes with elliptical fat processing versus Coleman preparation

    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 49:2783–2798

    Randomized trial · 43 women · related fat-grafting technique

    Different processing method and reconstructive population; not evidence for Liposmart or standardized MFAT.

  24. 24

    NICE · 2022 guideline · current online recommendations

    Osteoarthritis care: therapeutic exercise and weight management

    NG226 · diagnosis and management

    Standard-care context · not an endorsement of MFAT

    Provides clinical-care context. It is not presented here as device approval or a recommendation for Liposmart.

Evidence reviewed 29 October 2026. This is a targeted review of selected primary publications, abstracts, device documentation and professional guidance, not a systematic review. Reference headings are shortened descriptive titles; follow the links for the original publications. The cited Liposmart laboratory report is included as laboratory evidence, not clinical proof.

PROFESSIONAL ENQUIRIES

Bring the clinical question.

Discuss product documentation, scientific questions or professional training with the Liposmart team.

Contact Liposmart

Conceptual illustration