I find the authors' historical view of clinical fat grafting mistaken, including their use of “micro” as definitive nomenclature, as well as their claim that the harvesting of fat with small side-hole cannulas (without further processing) is somehow novel. Coleman, as they indicate, indeed popularized modern fat grafting, by codifying a reproducible clinical technique that placed fat in a structural way—from deep to superficial—throughout the face with blunt needles, stressing the distribution of small fat parcels widely within a nutritive substrate. Equally important, he assured the survival of what many saw as another fad movement within plastic surgery through the presentation of impressive, long-term clinical results. He also developed and made available an instrument to support the new clinical activity. Early on, I, along with others1 (Dr F Benslimane, personal communication, 2001), had trouble with the large Coleman injection needles within the delicate suborbital zone. I responded by substituting a cumbersome but effective deep dermal–fat graft for a time, but eventually discovered an existing ophthalmologic McIntyre blunt, inner cannula: designed to irrigate the canaliculus, its delicate shaft fits easily within the Coleman injection needles and it has a blunt end and minute side hole, as I reported in 2001.2 Since its first use in 1999, I have had no visible irregularities within this challenging region. Soon after, I was introduced to a micro-infusion cannula with multiple small side-holes (also pre-existing and entirely similar to the authors' much later harvesters) by one of the manufacturers, which facilitated the harvest of smaller fat parcels for what I now called “micro” fat grafting to contrast with “macro” grafting by the original Coleman needles, which I continued to use only in the vein-rich environment of the dorsum of the hand. Virtually all manufacturers of fat-grafting equipment have long since added similar micro …
Read full abstract