Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue (mFAT) in Orthopedic Regenerative Medicine: Biological Basis and Clinical Evidence

Introduction

Preparation and Administration

Among the main advantages of mFAT are that (1) it is autologous and avoids the risk of rejection and (2) it is comparably much simpler to prepare. To generate a sample of autologous mFAT for a patient, the adipose tissue must first be harvested via a small-scale liposuction. This can be done using vacuum aspiration with a cannula, typically from areas of the body such as the inner and outer thighs, flanks, abdomen, and mid and lower back [2]. Harvest site complications may occur, including infection, hematoma, and contour abnormalities if done too superficial [19]. Typical processing yields between 50 to 120 mL of lipoaspirate harvested, which can produce about 5 to 20 mL of mFAT product [19,20]. Prior to further processing, lipoaspirate can be stored at room temperature for up to 8 hours, with thorough mixing to ensure that homogeneity of the sample is maintained [2].

Production of mFAT from the lipoaspirate involves mechanical processing, for which LipoGems®, AutoPose™, and MiniTC® restore technologies are often used. In AutoPose™, the lipoaspirate is injected into the system and washed by the subsequent injection of sterile saline and allowing for gravimetrical separation. This was followed by decanting and filtering to obtain the final mFAT product [2]. The LipoGems® system is now particularly popular due to its use of a sterile, closed environment to mechanically process the lipoaspirate. In this closed-loop system, sterile saline is used to rinse the adipose sample, which is shaken in a canister. This process is repeated several times and decanted to obtain the final mFAT product [2]. In either case, there is very limited processing necessary. For MiniTC®, the process is similar, as it is a closed-loop system and involves centrifuging, washing, removing debris, and isolating the mFAT for injection all within 30 minutes [21]. Importantly, mFAT simply needs to be treated with mild mechanical force and does not require any more complex procedures, such as enzyme treatment or cell expansion [3,22]. This is a uniquely promising advantage of this biologic, as the processing of mFAT removes blood elements but retains tissue structure and stromal cell populations [2,23]. Notably, Ragni et al. found 376 and 381 miRNAs were detected in LA and µFAT samples [23]. To characterize the mFAT product produced, studies have often relied on techniques like flow cytometry and cell culture [2]. However, across various processing devices and methodologies, cellular composition and cytokine secretion profiles can be distinct, leading to variations that lack standardized analyses and present a major challenge for direct comparisons in the field [2].

To avoid the need for repeated liposuction when repeated injections are necessary for treatment, mFAT samples obtained autologously can be stored at −80 °C in a tissue bank with no significant alteration in viability, though the average cell count is lower in thawed samples compared to fresh ones [24]. Further characterization remains necessary to assess the exact differences in efficacy, if any, as a result of freezing and thawing. Once prepared, the mFAT can then be administered to the patient, typically via intra-articular — and in some cases, peri-articular — through injections to the affected tissues and joints. While there is not a standardized consensus on dosage and concentration, the most reported volumes injected range from 5 to 9 mL per injection for a total volume of 15 to 20 mL [19]. At the administration site, potential adverse effects include infection and joint effusion, though most preclinical and clinical studies have not found any significant complications, as will be reviewed subsequently in the paper [19].

Despite the comparative ease of preparing mFAT as a regenerative biologic, there nonetheless remain concerns about standardization for more widespread use and application. Variations in harvesting technique, harvesting location, processing methods (e.g. enzymatic digestion, mechanical emulsification, centrifugation, and washing), and differences in donor biology may result in inconsistent mFAT production [2,25]. For instance, some researchers have noted that body mass index may be important for the preparation and administration of mFAT. BMI is known to contribute to patient outcomes for knee osteoarthritis (a significant area of study and promise for mFAT use), as well as the protein expression of orthobiologic treatments such as mFAT, thereby raising questions around its effects on efficacy [26]. Baria et al. conducted a secondary analysis including 71 patients with knee osteoarthritis to receive an injection of either PRP or mFAT, after which patient reports and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) scores were tracked for one year. Of the 49 patients who completed the 12-month follow-up, researchers found KOOS and quality of life were inversely correlated with BMI for mFAT-treated patients but not PRP-treated patients [26].

Table 1. mFAT Preparation Processing Systems and Sources of Variability.

Table 1. mFAT Preparation Processing Systems and Sources of Variability.

Device	Key Features	Advantages
LipoGems®	Closed-loop saline washing and mechanical fragmentation	Sterile system; widely used; preserves microarchitecture
AutoPoseTM	Saline wash, decanting, filtration	Simple workflow; efficient separation
MiniTC®	Closed system with centrifugation, washing, debris removal (~30 min)	Rapid processing; integrated system

Preclinical Characterizations in Animal Models

Multiple studies have been conducted on rabbits with various orthopedic defects. Desando et al. evaluated the efficacy of injecting expanded-adipose stromal cells, SVF, and mFAT in bilateral anterior cruciate ligament transection-induced osteoarthritis at eight weeks in adult New Zealand rabbits [29]. All three biologics were found to have good cell viability and progenitor marker expression [29]. However, mFAT and SVF showed distinctive cell migration patterns at 7 and 30 days after the intra-articular injection of the different treatments into the knee joint, suggesting the need for further investigation to understand the underlying mechanisms for such differences in biology [29]. Nonetheless, mFAT, alongside the others, seemed to present the appropriate repair responses in osteoarthritic joints [29]. Filardo et al. similarly studied mFAT in rabbit models (96 knees) and found that mFAT can diminish synovial inflammation in rabbits, as well as playing a part in protecting cartilage [30]. In particular, two years after one singular intra-articular injection of mFAT, there was significantly increased levels of GAG in the articular cartilage [30]. This has positive implications for the ability of mFAT to support cartilage matrix synthesis and slow down the progression of osteoarthritis [30].

In addition, some researchers have looked at similar small animal models. Zeira et al. studied the use of a single intra- or peri-articular mFAT injection to treat spontaneous osteoarthritis 130 dogs [31]. Clinical outcomes were followed for 6 months through orthopedic examination and owner testimony, both of which indicated that the vast majority of subjects showed considerable improvement compared to the baseline with no significant local or systemic complications [31]. In rats (n = 12), Xu et al. found that mFAT significantly boosted the migration of chondrocytes, as well as improving visual appearance of damaged cartilage [32]. Cartilage defects were created on the femoral groove of rats and treated either with mFAT or PBS for 6 and 12 weeks [32]. Through evaluation by histological staining, immunohistochemistry, and scoring, researchers found that mFAT-treated subjects showed more regular cartilage surfaces and a large amount of hyaline cartilage, among other factors, that indicate the regeneration of normal, non-defective cartilage [32].

Overall, the limited preclinical data suggests that mFAT has a positive role in orthopedic healing with limited adverse effects, which has positive implications to support the findings in clinical literature, as will be reviewed in the following section. However, it is also important to note that there is a significant base of preclinical literature that can be further built up for a better characterization of mFAT. In this regard, while in vitro studies have identified potential pathways and mechanisms of action for mFAT in wound healing, these mechanistic findings have been significantly less so seen in live models in vivo.

Table 2. Summary of mFAT Preclinical Studies in Animal Models.

Table 2. Summary of mFAT Preclinical Studies in Animal Models.

Study	Design	Intervention	Key Findings
Desando et al., 2019 [29]	Rabbits, bilateral ACL transection-induced osteoarthritis	Expanded adipose stromal cells, SVF, mFAT	All biologics showed good viability; mFAT contributed repair responses
Filardo et al., 2022 [30]	Rabbits (n=96), synovial inflammation	Single mFAT intra-articular injection	Reduced inflammation, protected cartilage; increased GAG levels (improved cartilage matrix synthesis)
Zeira et al., 2018 [31]	Dogs (n=130), spontaneous osteoarthritis	Single intra- or peri-articular mFAT injection	Significant clinical improvement; no major complications
Xu et al., 2019 [32]	Rats (n=12), femoral groove cartilage defects	mFAT injection	Improved cartilage structure; more hyaline cartilage; enhanced regeneration and repair

Clinical Applications in Previous Literature

Unlike some other biologics in regenerative medicine, mFAT has seen a reasonable amount of study in the clinical arena, though the studies tend to be small and short in follow-up time scale. Most of the focus around clinical applications of mFAT have circled around osteoarthritis. The condition, which often results in significant pain and functional impairments in patients, has long been a focus due to its ability to significantly decrease quality of life [3,33]. As such, research has sought to continually produce improved methods of treatment and symptom alleviation. The pathological progression of osteoarthritis is characterized by the degradation of cartilage extracellular matrix (ECM), apoptosis of chondrocytes, the sole cell type that makes up articular cartilage, and release of inflammatory factors [3,34]. Since mFAT contains growth factors and an intact ECM structure, alongside numerous other regulatory molecules that can promote a positive microenvironment for injury healing, it can be a promising alternative intervention for multiple types of osteoarthritis.

Knee Osteoarthritis

The use of mFAT has been most commonly studied for use in knee osteoarthritis, and there are a range of studies assessing the efficacy and safety of mFAT in the short and medium term for this application. De Groote et al. conducted a longitudinal study on 39 patients with knee osteoarthritis who received single-dose mFAT injections. Outcomes were assessed with KOOS scales at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months following treatment. Researchers reported that KOOS scores improved across all subscales and remained high throughout the first year after mFAT application, though the highest occurred at 6 months. However, the study found that female patients showed worse outcomes than male patients. While significant adverse effects were not found, minor self-limiting synovitis lasting up to a maximum of 2 months occurred in 18% (n = 7) of patients [14].

Hudetz et al. conducted a prospective, non-randomized, interventional trial with 17 patients (for a total for 32 knees) with osteoarthritis [35]. Patients received intra-articular injection of mFAT and assessed for VAS, delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) glycans at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after administration of treatment [36]. The investigators suggested that the use of mFAT increased GAG content in hyaline cartilage. This is notable, as osteoarthritis is associated with the loss of macromolecules like GAG [36]. Heidari et al. similarly concluded that mFAT has potential in reducing the need for total knee replacements as a result of knee osteoarthritis [37].

Stanciu et al. reviewed mid-term efficacy, assessing the benefits of mFAT three years following application for knee osteoarthritis [38]. The retrospective, observational study included 335 patients who received one mFAT injection and were followed up with at 3 and 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years [38]. Assessments were made using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and KOOS [38]. The researchers found significant improvements throughout the three years, though a full statistical analysis was not possible due to study attrition over time [38].

Genenchten et al. used autologous mFAT to investigate the short-term clinical effect, therapeutic response rate (TRR), and therapy safety on knee osteoarthritis [15]. Investigators used a single intra-articular autologous mFAT injection in a sample of 64 patients with symptomatic, mild to severe knee osteoarthritis (n =37 received a unilateral and n = 27 received a bilateral injection) [15]. Patients were clinically evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after injection, at which time adverse effects and TRR were assessed [15]. Inflammation was reported in 79% of knees but resolved on its own within approximately two weeks of mFAT administration [15]. Researchers found that TRR was 64% at 3 months and 45% at 12 months post injection. Patients who responded to the therapy at 12 months improved with 28.3 ± 11.4 on the KOOS pain scale, while those who did not lost 2.1 ± 11.2 points [15]. Assessment of bone marrow lesions found a negative correlation with TRR at 12 months. Therefore, scientists suggest early clinical improvement from mFAT but mediocre response rate after one year [15]. As such, mFAT could present as a viable alternative for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis compared to repeat injections of cortisone, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and hyaluronic acid.

Richter et al. performed a randomized controlled trial involving 75 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, grouped by baseline pain levels and split into mFAT, corticosteroid, and saline control injection treatment groups [39]. Using the visual analog pain scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and KOOS at 2 and 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months, researchers foud that mFAT resulted in statistically significant primary outcomes for both pain levels and joint functionality compared to the control group [39]. In comparison, the corticosteroid group showed only statistically significant improvement compared to the control at 2 and 6 weeks [39].

Some researchers have also focused on the use of mFAT in conjunction with existing methods of osteoarthritis treatment and symptom alleviation. A randomized controlled trial by Ulivi et al. reported that mFAT, administered alongside arthroscopic debridement, showed promise for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis [18]. The clinical study, which included 78 patients, were split into arthroscopic debridement only and arthroscopic debridement and mFAT testing groups [18]. At six months and 24 months following treatment, clinical, radiological, and serological assessments improved functional scores in the KOOS and knee society score (KSS) measurements. Imaging from MRI scans also suggested visual improvement [18]. Hu et al. similarly found that use of mFAT injections combined with knee arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis revealed significant pain relief and improved joint function with minimal complications in short-term follow-up [40]. Additionally, Cattaneo et al. studied 38 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis who underwent an arthroscopic procedure associated with singular injection of mFAT [41]. Clinical outcomes, measured at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following, reported consistently improved KOOS scores and no significant adverse effects and complications [41].

While most of the work in this arena has focused on short-term safety and efficacy, some investigators have taken a look at the mid- to long-term time frame. In a retrospective study of 49 patients including 50 knees impacted by osteoarthritis, Giorgini et al. concluded that a single injection of autologous mFAT associated with arthroscopy is a safe and effective method to treat knee osteoarthritis [42]. Outcomes were measured 2 years following the procedure using KOOS and OKDC scales, both of which indicated substantial improvements [42]. In the longest-term follow-up analysis of this, Onorato et al. evaluated the effectiveness of mFAT injections for knee osteoarthritis up to 4 years after treatment [43]. The prospective trials featured 46 patients who had diagnostic arthroscopy and single autologous mFAT injection and were monitored at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, and 4 years after surgery [43]. The study reported an increase in the Lysholm knee score and WOMAC score from baseline, as well as a decrease of VAS pain score from baseline at the 4-year follow-up [43]. There were also no major adverse effects reported, and age, body mass index, and the number of stem cells from injected mFAT were not significantly correlated with the results [43]. Patients with synovitis did, however, show a 75% failure rate. Of the patient sample, 32% (15 subjects) were deemed treatment failures due to the necessity for secondary surgery or further injection therapy [43]. This study marks an important finding from the previously discussed studies as it suggests the effectiveness of mFAT for longer time periods.

Some studies have focused on specific conditions that may occur concurrently with knee osteoarthritis. In this regard, Malanga et al. conducted a prospective pilot study to determine the safety and efficacy of mFAT for patients with knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis and meniscus tears [44]. Meniscus tears are a common injury that can increase the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis. In the study, twenty eligible patients were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months following ultrasound-guided intra-meniscal and intra-articular mFAT injections using the Numeric Pain Scale (NPS) and KOOS [44]. Researchers reported a significant improvement in patient pain by one year following the procedure, as well as better KOOS scores [44]. While most subjects were not reported to have any major complications, one patient developed uncomplicated cellulitis at the site of adipose harvestations and was treated with oral antibiotics [44].

As one of many autologous biologics with the potential to promote tissue healing and wound regeneration, mFAT has also been compared against other promising biologics. Interestingly, Mautner et al. found that while both mFAT and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) injections could relieve knee osteoarthritis, there were no significant differences between the two [45]. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Park et al. found that across six randomized controlled trials included, PRP and mFAT both reached the clinically significant threshold in improving outcomes up to one year following treatment, with similar results for pain alleviation, functional improvement, and safety [46]. At 6 months, however, mFAT showed improvements over PRP by a small but statistically significant margin [46]. Nonetheless, the comparisons between mFAT and biologics such as PRP and BMAC require further study to determine which are optimal for specific applications and patient populations and needs, as present studies and reviews have indicated comparable but not necessarily superior effects by mFAT over other biologics [47,48].

Other researchers have also taken a special interest in the elderly population. Gobbi et al. found that a single mFAT injection led to functional, clinical, and quality of life improvements in geriatric patients two years after treatment [49]. There were also no significant complications [49]. Li et al. also found positive effects by mFAT for atherosclerosis and osteoarthritis in the elderly patient population [50].

Nonetheless, there remains a need for further long-term evaluation of mFAT efficacy and potential complications. The majority of studies also feature small sample sizes, therefore pointing to the need for significantly larger randomized controlled trials to truly develop a deep base of information on mFAT safety and effectiveness. Moreover, it is worth noting that while most studies did not report any major complications, the issues that have arisen (e.g. uncomplicated cellulitis at the harvest site) must be further investigated.

Hip Osteoarthritis

In addition to knee osteoarthritis, the mFAT biologic has also found use in various other orthopedic applications, with hip osteoarthritis another prominent course of study. Heidari et al. compared the effect of mFAT and a combination therapy of mFAT and PRP for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis [37]. The observational study, which involved 147 patients with hip osteoarthritis, saw significant improvements in both the Oxford hip score and visual analogue score for pain for both treatment types [37]. Investigators note that the combination therapy may be particularly relevant for patients with low body mass index where it might be difficult to obtain enough mFAT for effective single-biologic dosage [37].

Zaffagnini et al. included 30 patients with hip osteoarthritis in a study featuring single mFTA injection [51]. Clinical evaluations using the VAS, WOMAC, and Harris Hip Score were conducted at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after administration [51]. Investigators did not report any major complications, and the majority of patients saw an improvement in WOMAC scores at 1 and 3 months and all other scores at every follow-up compared to baseline [51]. Three patients were noted to have failed, with failure defined as the need for subsequent injection or surgical procedure(s) due to continued or worsened symptoms. Researchers saw better outcomes for mild cases of hip osteoarthritis compared to moderate as assessed via WOMAC scores compared to baseline [51]. Of note, while researchers did not find disease progression in imaging studies, there was also no indication of structural changes to suggest the improvements indicated by the pain scores [51].

Some mid-term characterization of mFAT treatment for hip osteoarthritis have also been conducted. Natali et al. assessed 55 patients with hip osteoarthritis who underwent an ultrasound-guided injection of mFAT. After 3 years, improvements were seen according to the Oxford Hip Score [52]. As in the case of knee osteoarthritis, the studies that exist surrounding the use of mFAT for hip osteoarthritis suffer from a lack of large, randomized controlled trials that are truly capable of deepening the knowledge pool around safety and efficacy for patients over the long term.

Tendon Disease

Outside of osteoarthritis as a large category, there has also been limited study of the effect of mFAT as a treatment for tendon disease. In a pilot study, Hogaboom et al. investigated mFAT injections for rotator cuff tendinopathy in 10 spinal cord-injured wheelchair user patients [53]. After ultrasound-guided injections of mFAT into the rotator cuff tendons and other shoulder structures such as the acromioclavicular and glenohumeral joints and subacromial bursa, patients were followed up with at 6 and 12 months [53]. Using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Wheelchair User’s Shoulder Pain Index (WUSPI), Brief Pain Inventory pain interference items (BPI-I7), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and ultrasound, investigators found meaningful improvements as well as no major adverse effects [53].

Ferracini et al. also conducted a case-control study on Achilles tendon repair when treated with mFAT [54]. Eight patients underwent open suture repair alongside perilesional administration of mFAT. Compared to a group that only underwent the conventional open suture intervention, no differences were seen between the mFAT and non-mFAT groups according to the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI) [54]. However, ultrasound evaluation at 3 months showed enhanced tendon remodeling in the group with the mFAT combination therapy [54]. There were also no adverse effects reported for either patient group [54]. Notably, then, while the limited data seems promising regarding the use of mFAT biologic interventions for tendon disease, there must be larger and randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up times to fully characterize the effectiveness and safety profile.

Other Studies

While the majority of studies on the usage and efficacy of mFAT have centered around osteoarthritis symptom alleviation and progression delay, some researchers have also begun to branch out to review its potential for other injury types. In a randomized controlled trial, Wang et al. studied 70 patients with acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries [55]. Common among sports-related injuries, ACL issues often require surgical reconstruction to regain the necessary joint function and stability, but the inflammation and graft-to-bone healing still pose challenges during the recovery phase. As such, researchers suggest that mFAT has the potential to promote tissue regeneration and reduce inflammation for ACL injuries. Patients in the study are split into a standard ACL reconstruction group and an ACL reconstruction with mFAT intra-articular injection group [55]. Follow-ups are conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months following the procedure, assessed via MRI, Visual Analogue Scale scores, International Knee Documentation Committee scores, and inflammatory markers [55]. The results for this trial have not yet been published [55].

Current Regulations

While mFAT is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, the mechanical and not enzymatic nature of processing to produce mFAT renders parts of the process in line with the FDA’s guidelines for “minimal manipulation” of the sample [44]. There still remain concerns regarding regulation and compliance in commercial use of mFAT outside of research purposes, but the simpler preparation process may be a positive indicator.

Table 3. Summary of Clinical Studies Evaluating mFAT in Orthopedic Applications.

Table 3. Summary of Clinical Studies Evaluating mFAT in Orthopedic Applications.

Study	Design	Key Findings
Knee Osteoarthritis
De Groote et al., 2025 [14]	Longitudinal (n=39), single mFAT injection	Improved all KOOS domains after 12 mo, peak at 6 mo, with sex differences observed; 18% transient synovitis
Hudetz et al., 2017 [35]	Prospective non-randomized (n=17, 32 knees), mFAT injection	Increased GAG content in cartilage after 12 mo
Stanciu et al., 2025 [38]	Retrospective observational (n=335), single mFAT injection	Sustained improvements by 3 years; limited by attrition
Van Genechten et al., 2021 [15]	Case series (n=64), single mFAT injection	TRR 64% (3 mo), 45% (12 mo); moderate durability; 79% transient inflammation
Richter et al., 2025 [39]	RCT (n=75), mFAT injection	Significant pain/function improvement vs control by 12 mo; longer effect than steroids
Ulivi et al., 2023 [18]	RCT (n=78), mFAT and arthroscopy	Improved functional and imaging outcomes by 24 mo
Cattaneo et al., 2018 [41]	Prospective (n=38), mFAT and arthroscopy	Consistent functional improvement across 12 mo
Giorgini et al., 2022 [42]	Retrospective (n=49), mFAT and arthroscopy	Sustained improvement across 2 years
Onorato et al., 2024 [43]	Prospective (n=46), mFAT and arthroscopy	Long-term improvement across 4 years; 32% failure rate
Malanga et al., 2020 [44]	Pilot (n=20), intra-articular and intra-meniscal mFAT	Significant pain and function improvement by 12 mo
Mautner et al., 2019 [45]	Comparative, mFAT	Comparable efficacy to BMAC
Park et al., 2025 [46]	Meta-analysis including 6 RCTs	Comparable to PRP at 12 mo; slight advantage at 6 mo
Hip Osteoarthritis
Heidari et al., 2021 [37]	Observational (n=147), mFAT with and without PRP	Both groups improved up to 2 years; combo may help low BMI patients
Zaffagnini et al., 2025 [51]	Prospective pilot (n=30), single mFAT injection	Symptom improvement by 12 mo; better in mild OA; no structural MRI changes
Natali et al., 2022 [52]	Observational (n=55), mFAT injection	Sustained improvement by the Oxford Hip Score for 3 years
Tendon Disorders
Hogaboom et al., 2021 [53]	Pilot (n=10), mFAT injection into rotator cuff	Pain and functional improvement after 12 mo
Ferracini et al., 2022 [54]	Case-control (n=8), mFAT and surgical repair	No functional difference with or without mFAT; improved tendon remodeling after 3 mo
Other
Wang et al., 2025 [55]	RCT protocol (n=70), ACL reconstruction and mFAT	Study ongoing with results pending

Conclusion

Abbreviations

References

1. Fu, H.; Wang, C. Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue - An Innovative Therapeutic Approach: A Narrative Review. Medicine (United States) 2025, 104, e41724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Greenwood, V.; Clausen, P.; Matuska, A.M. Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue Cellular Composition Varies by Processing Device and Analytical Method. Scientific Reports 2022, 12 12, 16107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Wang, J.; Liang, H.; Wu, C.; Guo, Y.; Jiang, X.; Sun, Y. Role of Micro-fragmented Adipose Tissue in Cartilage Repair (Review). Biomed. Rep. 2025, 22, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Tremolada, C.; Ricordi, C.; Caplan, A.I.; Ventura, C. Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Lipogems, a Reverse Story: From Clinical Practice to Basic Science. Methods Mol. Biol. 2016, 1416, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Bianchi, F.; Maioli, M.; Leonardi, E.; Olivi, E.; Pasquinelli, G.; Valente, S.; Mendez, A.J.; Ricordi, C.; Raffaini, M.; Tremolada, C.; et al. A New Nonenzymatic Method and Device to Obtain a Fat Tissue Derivative Highly Enriched in Pericyte-like Elements by Mild Mechanical Forces from Human Lipoaspirates. Cell Transplant. 2013, 22, 2063–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Vezzani, B.; Shaw, I.; Lesme, H.; Yong, L.; Khan, N.; Tremolada, C.; Péault, B. Higher Pericyte Content and Secretory Activity of Microfragmented Human Adipose Tissue Compared to Enzymatically Derived Stromal Vascular Fraction. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2018, 7, 876–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Paolella, F.; Manferdini, C.; Gabusi, E.; Gambari, L.; Filardo, G.; Kon, E.; Mariani, E.; Lisignoli, G. Effect of Microfragmented Adipose Tissue on Osteoarthritic Synovial Macrophage Factors. J. Cell. Physiol. 2019, 234, 5044–5055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Yuan, L.; Liu, H.; Wang, J.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, Y. Adipose-Derived Stem Cells: Current Applications and Future Directions in the Regeneration of Multiple Tissues. Stem Cells Int. 2020, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Zheng, C.X.; Sui, B.D.; Liu, N.; Hu, C.H.; He, T.; Zhang, X.Y.; Zhao, P.; Chen, J.; Xuan, K.; Jin, Y. Adipose Mesenchymal Stem Cells from Osteoporotic Donors Preserve Functionality and Modulate Systemic Inflammatory Microenvironment in Osteoporotic Cytotherapy. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Im, G. Il Bone Marrow-Derived Stem/Stromal Cells and Adipose Tissue-Derived Stem/Stromal Cells: Their Comparative Efficacies and Synergistic Effects. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2017, 105, 2640–2648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Kunze, K.N.; Burnett, R.A.; Wright-Chisem, J.; Frank, R.M.; Chahla, J. Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell Treatments and Available Formulations. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 2020, 13, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Li, L.; Li, L.; Zhang, Y.; Mu, J.; Chen, J.; Zhang, C.; Cao, H.; Gao, J.; Gao, J. Transplantation of Human Mesenchymal Stem-Cell-Derived Exosomes Immobilized in an Adhesive Hydrogel for Effective Treatment of Spinal Cord Injury. Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 4298–4305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Nava, S.; Sordi, V.; Pascucci, L.; Tremolada, C.; Ciusani, E.; Zeira, O.; Cadei, M.; Soldati, G.; Pessina, A.; Parati, E.; et al. Long-Lasting Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Human Microfragmented Adipose Tissue. Stem Cells Int. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. De Groote, J.; Roten, C.; Fomenko, E.; Coorevits, P.; Harth, A.; Depaepe, Y. Autologous Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue (MFAT) Injections May Be an Effective Treatment for Advanced Knee Osteoarthritis: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2025, 14, 6571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Van Genechten, W.; Vuylsteke, K.; Martinez, P.R.; Swinnen, L.; Sas, K.; Verdonk, P. Autologous Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue (MFAT) to Treat Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: Early Outcomes of a Consecutive Case Series. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Brophy, R.H.; Fillingham, Y.A. AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline Summary: Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee (Nonarthroplasty), Third Edition. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2022, 30, E721–E729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Shoukrie, S.I.; Venugopal, S.; Dhanoa, R.K.; Selvaraj, R.; Selvamani, T.Y.; Zahra, A.; Malla, J.; Hamouda, R.K.; Hamid, P.F. Safety and Efficacy of Injecting Mesenchymal Stem Cells Into a Human Knee Joint To Treat Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review. Cureus 2022, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Ulivi, M.; Meroni, V.; Viganò, M.; Colombini, A.; Lombardo, M.D.M.; Rossi, N.; Orlandini, L.; Messina, C.; Sconfienza, L.M.; Peretti, G.M.; et al. Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue (MFAT) Associated with Arthroscopic Debridement Provides Functional Improvement in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2023, 31, 3079–3090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. McGee, C.; Baria, M.R.; Gatewood, C.; Tiwari, M.; Vasileff, W.K.; Lavender, C. Lipoaspiration and Processing to Create Microfragmented Adipose Tissue. Video Journal of Sports Medicine 2022, 2, 26350254221076856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Varone, B.B.; Conde, R.B.; Leite, C.B.G.; Giglio, P.N.; Gobbi, R.G.; Demange, M.K. Fat Harvesting for Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue Injections: A Pilot Study Comparing Safety in Procedures Performed by Orthopedic and Plastic Surgeons. Rev. Bras. Ortop. (Sao. Paulo). 2025, 60, s00451813003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. MiniTC® Processing Kit - APEX Biologix. Available online: https://apexbiologix.com/products/minitc-processing-kit (accessed on 21 March 2026).
22. Kaewsuwan, S.; Song, S.Y.; Kim, J.H.; Sung, J.H. Mimicking the Functional Niche of Adipose-Derived Stem Cells for Regenerative Medicine. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2012, 12, 1575–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Ragni, E.; Viganò, M.; Torretta, E.; Orfei, C.P.; 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] [PubMed]
24. Zekušić, M.; Brlek, P.; Zenić, L.; Molnar, V.; Ledinski, M.; Bujić Mihica, M.; Štimac, A.; Halassy, B.; Ramić, S.; Puljić, D.; et al. Cryopreservation and Validation of Microfragmented Adipose Tissue for Autologous Use in Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2025, 26, 6969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Trivisonno, A.; Alexander, R.W.; Baldari, S.; Cohen, S.R.; Di Rocco, G.; Gentile, P.; Magalon, G.; Magalon, J.; Miller, R.B.; Womack, H.; et al. Intraoperative Strategies for Minimal Manipulation of Autologous Adipose Tissue for Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapies: Concise Review. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2019, 8, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Baria, M.; George, R.; Barker, T.; Flanigan, D.; Kaeding, C.; Magnussen, R.A. Relationship of Body Mass Index on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Microfragmented Adipose Tissue for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2024, 103, 1006–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Bosetti, M.; Borrone, A.; Follenzi, A.; Messaggio, F.; Tremolada, C.; Cannas, M. Human Lipoaspirate as Autologous Injectable Active Scaffold for One-Step Repair of Cartilage Defects. Cell Transplant. 2016, 25, 1043–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Ceserani, V.; Ferri, A.; Berenzi, A.; Benetti, A.; Ciusani, E.; Pascucci, L.; Bazzucchi, C.; Coccè, V.; Bonomi, A.; Pessina, A.; et al. Angiogenic and Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Micro-Fragmented Fat Tissue and Its Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells. Vasc. Cell 2016, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Desando, G.; Bartolotti, I.; Martini, L.; Giavaresi, G.; Aldini, N.N.; Fini, M.; Roffi, A.; Perdisa, F.; Filardo, G.; Kon, E.; et al. Regenerative Features of Adipose Tissue for Osteoarthritis Treatment in a Rabbit Model: Enzymatic Digestion Versus Mechanical Disruption. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Filardo, G.; Tschon, M.; Perdisa, F.; Brogini, S.; Cavallo, C.; Desando, G.; Giavaresi, G.; Grigolo, B.; Martini, L.; Nicoli Aldini, N.; et al. Micro-Fragmentation Is a Valid Alternative to Cell Expansion and Enzymatic Digestion of Adipose Tissue for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Preclinical Study. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2022, 30, 773–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Zeira, O.; Scaccia, S.; Pettinari, L.; Ghezzi, E.; Asiag, N.; Martinelli, L.; Zahirpour, D.; Dumas, M.P.; Konar, M.; Lupi, D.M.; et al. Intra-Articular Administration of Autologous Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue in Dogs with Spontaneous Osteoarthritis: Safety, Feasibility, and Clinical Outcomes. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2018, 7, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Xu, T.; Yu, X.; Yang, Q.; Liu, X.; Fang, J.; Dai, X. Autologous Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue as Stem Cell-Based Natural Scaffold for Cartilage Defect Repair. Cell Transplant. 2019, 28, 1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Taruc-Uy, R.L.; Lynch, S.A. Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoarthritis. Primary Care - Clinics in Office Practice 2013, 40, 821–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Aigner, T.; Söder, S.; Gebhard, P.M.; McAlinden, A.; Haag, J. Mechanisms of Disease: Role of Chondrocytes in the Pathogenesis of Osteoarthritis--Structure, Chaos and Senescence. Nat. Clin. Pract. Rheumatol. 2007, 3, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Hudetz, D.; Borić, I.; Rod, E.; Jeleč, Ž.; Radić, A.; Vrdoljak, T.; Skelin, A.; Lauc, G.; Trbojević-Akmačić, I.; Plečko, M.; et al. The Effect of Intra-Articular Injection of Autologous Microfragmented Fat Tissue on Proteoglycan Synthesis in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis. Genes (Basel). 2017, 8, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Allan, Y.; Stanwell, P.; Williams, A.; Rohrsheim, J. Glycosaminoglycan Content of Knee Cartilage Following Posterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture Demonstrated by Delayed Gadolinium-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cartilage (DGEMRIC): A Case Report | Request PDF. J. Bone Joint Surg. 2006, 87, 2763–2767. [Google Scholar]
37. Heidari, N.; Borg, T.M.; Olgiati, S.; Slevin, M.; Danovi, A.; Fish, B.; Wilson, A.; Noorani, A. Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Injection (MFAT) May Be a Solution to the Rationing of Total Knee Replacement: A Prospective, Gender-Bias Mitigated, Reproducible Analysis at Two Years. Stem Cells Int. 2021, 2021, 9921015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Stanciu, N.; Heidari, N.; Slevin, M.; Ujlaki-Nagi, A.A.; Trâmbițaș, C.; Arbănași, E.M.; Russu, O.M.; Melinte, R.M.; Azamfirei, L.; Brînzaniuc, K. Predicting Long-Term Benefits of Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue Therapy in Knee Osteoarthritis: Three-Year Follow-Up on Pain Relief and Mobility. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 4549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Richter, D.L.; Harrison, J.L.; Faber, L.; Schrader, S.; Zhu, Y.; Pierce, C.; Watson, L.; Shetty, A.K.; Schenck, R.C. Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Injection Reduced Pain Compared With a Saline Control Among Patients With Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Knee During 1-Year Follow-Up: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arthroscopy 2025, 41, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Hu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, W.; Wang, N.; Lv, S.; Pan, C.; Tong, P. Efficacy and Safety of Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue Combined with Knee Arthroscopy in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2025, 20, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Cattaneo, G.; De Caro, A.; Napoli, F.; Chiapale, D.; Trada, P.; Camera, A. Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue Injection Associated with Arthroscopic Procedures in Patients with Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2018, 19, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Giorgini, A.; Selleri, F.; Zambianchi, F.; Cataldo, G.; Francioni, E.; Catani, F. Autologous Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue Associated with Arthroscopy in Moderate–Severe Knee Osteoarthritis: Outcome at Two Year Follow-Up. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2022, 23, 963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Onorato, F.; Rucci, M.; Alessio-Mazzola, M.; Bistolfi, A.; Castagnoli, C.; Formica, M.; Ferracini, R. Autologous Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis Demonstrates Effectiveness in 68% of Patients at 4-Year Follow-Up. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2024, 144, 3925–3935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Malanga, G.A.; Chirichella, P.S.; Hogaboom, N.S.; Capella, T. Clinical Evaluation of Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue as a Treatment Option for Patients with Meniscus Tears with Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Pilot Study. Int. Orthop. 2020, 45, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Mautner, K.; Bowers, R.; Easley, K.; Fausel, Z.; Robinson, R. Functional Outcomes Following Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Versus Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections for Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2019, 8, 1149–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Park, Y.B.; Lee, S.K.; Kim, K. Il; Yoo, J.H.; Jung, T.; Kim, J.H. Microfragmented Adipose Tissue as an Alternative to Platelet-Rich Plasma for Intra-Articular Injection in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Am. J. Sports Med. 2025, 53, 3554–3564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Hohmann, E.; Keough, N.; Frank, R.M.; Rodeo, S. Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue Demonstrates Comparable Clinical Efficacy to Other Orthobiologic Injections in Treating Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Level I to IV Clinical Studies. Arthroscopy 2025, 41, 418–441.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Parmar, T.; Lingam, S.; AlSamhori, J.; Elias, J.; Ashkar, I.; Ilyas, M.H.; Daher, M.; Abboud, J.A. Microfragmented Adipose Tissue in Orthopedic Regeneration: Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and Regulatory Perspectives. Regenerative Med. 2026, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Gobbi, A.; Dallo, I.; Rogers, C.; Striano, R.D.; Mautner, K.; Bowers, R.; Rozak, M.; Bilbool, N.; Murrell, W.D. Two-Year Clinical Outcomes of Autologous Microfragmented Adipose Tissue in Elderly Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Multi-Centric, International Study. International Orthopaedics 2021, 45 45, 1179–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Li, W.; Guo, H.; Wang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J. Autologous Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue in the Treatment of Atherosclerosis Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis in Geriatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2023, 18, e0289610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Zaffagnini, M.; Raggi, F.; Carillo, E.; Andriolo, L.; Boffa, A.; Cavallo, C.; Cattini, L.; Zaffagnini, S.; Filardo, G. Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue for the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Pilot Study at 1-Year Follow-Up. J. Exp. Orthop. 2025, 12, e70579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Natali, S.; Screpis, D.; Romeo, M.; Magnanelli, S.; Rovere, G.; Andrea, A.; Camarda, L.; Zorzi, C. Is Intra-Articular Injection of Autologous Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue Effective in Hip Osteoarthritis? A Three Year Follow-Up. International Orthopaedics 2022, 47, 1487–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Hogaboom, N.; Malanga, G.; Cherian, C.; Dyson-Hudson, T. A Pilot Study to Evaluate Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue Injection under Ultrasound Guidance for the Treatment of Refractory Rotator Cuff Disease in Wheelchair Users with Spinal Cord Injury. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2021, 44, 886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Ferracini, R.; Artiaco, S.; Daghino, W.; Falco, M.; Gallo, A.; Garibaldi, R.; Tiraboschi, E.; Guidotti, C.; Bistolfi, A. Microfragmented Adipose Tissue (M-FATS) for Improved Healing of Surgically Repaired Achilles Tendon Tears: A Preliminary Study. Foot Ankle Spec. 2022, 15, 472–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Wang, J.; Liu, X.; Peng, H.; Fu, H.; Wang, C. Effects of Injecting Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue (MFAT) in the Tendon-Bone Junction Region during Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction on Postoperative Tendon-Bone Healing: A Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial in China. BMJ Open 2025, 15, e104249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]