Fat injections are considered by most doctors to have some permanent benefit. In our practice, we have studied and presented another option which has given superior results, LiveFill. Fat injection technique involves removal of fat cells from the body via liposuction. The cells are then usually spun in a centrifuge. They are then injected through a needle back into the face. This process kills (depending on the study you read and the technique used for measuring viability) most to nearly all of the cells. These dead cells cannot resurrect themselves.
LiveFill uses nontraumatized cells shaped into grafts which are then placed directly into hollow areas. The percentage of dead cells is very low, 12% in our studies (vs. 75% dead cells for Coleman technique fat aspiration). That means the number you are starting out with is higher, and your eventual success rate is higher as well. We demonstrated this with 3-dimensional CT scans measuring volume, presented the results at ASAPS and ASPS meetings, and published the results in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
So yes, LiveFill is an alternative to temporary fillers.
Having said that, in most 62-year-old patients, there are usually two primary problems going on: loss of volume, and sagging of facial skin. Sagging of the skin cannot be overcome with obtuse amounts of volume replacement, in my opinion. Rather, a combination of a cleverly done facelift with volume restoration (with LiveFill grafts) gives the best long term results.
An old mentor of mine once said that if Plan A fails (i.e. temporary filler, temporary filler, temporary filler), make sure Plan B is not the same as Plan A (i.e. more temporary filler), but think of the problem differently. In this case, consider whether a facelift is the most appropriate way to rejuvenate the face.



Contact the doctor



