As many seek Kardashian-esque cosmetic tweaks and with ‘walk-in, walk-out’ elective procedures continuing to grow in popularity, it is important to discuss the options, even if surgeons are not talking about them. These two cosmetic options are natural vs. synthetic fillers. When discussing the two, fat grafting vs. Hyaluronic Acid (HA) fillers, the main points are retention rate, price and value for money. Economically comparing fat grafting and fillers would be akin to a homeowner asking “is investment in solar panels worth it?” 

There are two scenarios—the first being a HA filler procedure that costs about $2,400 ($600 per cc). This procedure is done with synthetic fillers which have a retention rate of less than 30% after 4 months and a 0% retention rate after 12 months.

The second scenario is a Puregraft fat-grafting procedure which would cost a patient about $3,000 (20-60cc). This option results in a 70-80% retention rate after 4 months and a 30-50% retention rate after 12 months. 

In addition to a higher retention rate and return on investment, fat grafting is ideal for the health conscious as fat is being drawn, purified through filtration technology and repurposed, injecting no synthetic filler materials. As patients learn the benefits of fat grafting over HA fillers, more doctor's offices begin to offer the alternative procedure. Dr. Goretti H. Taghva, Los Angeles-based Plastic Surgeon, is one surgeon who is meeting the demand and offering Puregraft fat transfers, as Puregraft has become one of the most predictable filtration systems in the industry.

Performing hundreds of Puregraft facial fat transfers under local anesthesia, Dr. Goretti H. Taghva is one of many surgeons who believe that although fat grafting may be more of an investment, it is definitely worth the upfront cost in the long run.