A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.

Review Article

Fat Embolism Syndrome Based on the Development of a Preliminary Proposed Framework Requiring Validation: A Narrative Literature Review

62 views

⸱

DOI:

10.3791/71947

⸱

August 21st, 2026

 ,  , 
1Department of Intensive Care Unit, Ningbo No.6 Hospital, 2The Department of Medicine, Northwest Minzu University

* These authors contributed equally

In This Article

Summary

This narrative review synthesizes clinical evidence on fat embolism syndrome, integrating clinical manifestations, trauma history, and imaging features into a preliminary, conceptual, but unvalidated, proposal proposing novel diagnostic criteria. The framework aims to improve early detection and diagnostic specificity while highlighting current limitations and future research directions in pathophysiology and management.

Abstract

Fat embolism syndrome (FES) is a potentially life-threatening clinical condition characterized by multisystem dysfunction caused by fat particles entering the circulation, most commonly following trauma or orthopedic procedures. However, early diagnosis remains challenging due to nonspecific clinical manifestations and the limitations of existing diagnostic criteria. This narrative review aims to synthesize current evidence on the clinical features, pathophysiology, diagnostic approaches, imaging characteristics, and management strategies of FES, and to propose updated diagnostic criteria to improve clinical applicability. A narrative review of published studies and clinical reports was conducted to examine the relationship between clinical manifestations, trauma history, and imaging findings. The review highlights the variability in reported incidence, the multisystem involvement of respiratory, neurological, dermatological, and ocular systems, and the evolving role of imaging techniques, particularly magnetic resonance imaging, in detecting cerebral involvement. Based on these findings, we propose a preliminary framework for validation that integrates clinical manifestations, trauma history, and imaging evidence, with defined major criteria, supporting factors, and diagnostic protocols. Although the preliminary proposed criteria may enhance diagnostic specificity and facilitate earlier recognition, limitations remain, including the nonspecificity of certain clinical signs and reliance on advanced imaging resources. Future research should focus on elucidating molecular mechanisms, improving diagnostic tools, and developing targeted therapeutic strategies to optimize clinical outcomes in FES.

Introduction

Fat embolism syndrome (FES) is a complex clinical condition characterized by multisystem dysfunction resulting from the entry of fat particles into the circulation, most commonly after severe trauma, long bone fractures, or orthopedic procedures1. Once in the bloodstream, these lipid droplets can obstruct microvasculature in critical organs such as the lungs and brain, leading to a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from mild hypoxemia to severe neurological impairment2. Despite decades of clinical observation, FES remains underdiagnosed, particularly in its early stages, due to its insidious onset and the nonspecific nature of its symptoms3.

Traditional diagnostic approaches, such as the Gurd and Wilson criteria, rely heavily on clinical signs that often appear late in the disease course and may overlap with other conditions, limiting their sensitivity and clinical utility4. Furthermore, the lack of a universally accepted diagnostic standard and the reliance on postmortem pathological confirmation continue to pose significant challenges for timely and accurate diagnosis in routine clinical practice5.

In recent years, advances in imaging techniques and a growing understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying FES have created new opportunities to refine diagnostic strategies. In particular, magnetic resonance imaging has demonstrated high sensitivity in detecting cerebral involvement, while computed tomography provides valuable insights into pulmonary manifestations6. At the same time, emerging evidence highlights the multifactorial etiology of FES, encompassing not only traumatic causes but also endogenous conditions such as sickle cell disease and iatrogenic factors, including surgical interventions7.

These developments underscore the need for a more comprehensive and integrative diagnostic framework that moves beyond traditional symptom-based criteria. Accordingly, this narrative review aims to synthesize current knowledge on the clinical features, epidemiology, imaging characteristics, and management of FES, and to propose updated diagnostic criteria (to be validated) that integrate clinical manifestations, trauma history, and imaging findings. By providing a clearer conceptual and practical approach to diagnosis, this review seeks to support earlier recognition, improve clinical decision-making, and ultimately enhance patient outcomes in this challenging and often overlooked condition.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Review and Perspective

Incidence
FES is widespread worldwide, but it is impossible to estimate its local prevalence. The prevalence rates reported in the literature have little epidemiologic value and should be more accurately described as the prevalence of FES within a specific disease or population (Table 1). Data synthesized from prospective cohort studies, retrospective reviews, and autopsy series8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22. The most critical pathogenetic factor in determining the prevalence of FES is any condition that causes internal or traumatic injury and results in fat particles entering the circulation. Considering traumatic factors alone, burns, car accidents, and fractures are the most common factors in the development of FES in surgical treatment. The risk of FES is increased by specific treatment needs such as organ transplantation, bone marrow aspiration, liposuction, and cesarean delivery. This is because there are always specific circumstances that lead to rupture of adipocytes, releasing fat particles into damaged capillaries or small blood vessels at all levels. Of course, we must admit a fact. The diagnosis of fat embolism syndrome is generally based on the clinical presentation. The occurrence of non-traumatic fat embolism is not limited to clinically rare diseases. Factors including hyperlipidemia, fatty liver, advanced age, and non-fracture trauma can also trigger the development of non-traumatic fat embolism and ultimately lead to the onset of fat embolism syndrome.

In terms of endogenous factors, pathological mechanisms contributing to FES exist in clinically rare diseases such as sickle cell disease (SCD) and vascular smooth muscle lipoma2,3,11,13,23. Conservative estimates in the literature place the specific incidence of FES at a minimum of 0.9% to 2.2% when induced by long bone fracture factors24.

The methodology for calculating the incidence of FES is inconsistent due to design limitations across the various studies reporting FES in the literature. For example, the incidence of FES reported for autopsy outcomes is higher than that reported for clinical outcomes24. Here, we suggest that these factors reporting the incidence of FES should be considered as potential risk factors to be appropriately considered in patient management after clinical treatment, for example, cosmetic surgery using liposuction protocols25,26, SCD27. In particular, SCD contributes to FES through the pathological mechanism of bone marrow necrosis, which has the highest reported mortality rate of 64%27, suggesting that clinicians should be well informed about bone marrow-related pathology in order to make favorable clinical decisions in the management of patients with specific diseases.

The criteria reported by Gurd are still used as the basis for the diagnosis of FES in current clinical practice, although they are no longer applicable to current medical technology; they are still of value. We suggest that the 19% incidence rate reported by Gurd should not continue to be used as the current incidence rate of FES in 20263. This review acknowledges substantial differences among study populations and diagnostic methods, so a single historical estimate cannot be presented as the current general incidence. Clinicians diagnosing fat embolism syndrome must consider not only clinical manifestations, history of trauma, and imaging findings, but also surgical history, blood lipid levels, age, fatty liver, and other patient-related factors for a comprehensive evaluation.

Clinical manifestation
The clinical manifestations of FES depend on the site of endogenous tissue damage caused by fat particles entering small blood vessels at all levels and circulating with the blood, which has been reported in the literature to be primarily in the lungs, skin, brain, and eyes. Clinicians are often unable to effectively assess disease severity in patients diagnosed with FES, largely due to the diversity of risk factors predisposing to FES and the lack of clinically monitored endogenous damage to fat particles at the blood level. The clinical features associated with FES usually do not become apparent until 48 h after the onset of the specific predisposing factors, and the interval from detection to the onset of clinical features is closely related to the blood circulation cycle.

Systemic symptoms
According to the characteristics of the pathomechanism of FES, is there a systemic fat embolism in which all parts of the systemic circulation are affected? In this rare case, the average diameter of the fat particles entering the bloodstream must be small enough. The small diameter of the fat particles can be easily transported through the capillaries of the systemic and pulmonary circulation, and thus from the heart to all parts of the body. At the distal end of the blood transport, probably due to the relatively slow blood flow, after platelet aggregation in a damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) recognition pattern, small-diameter fat particles are netted and thus clustered into fat emboli7. Of course, due to the phenomena of laminar and turbulent blood flow in the vicinity of heart valves, small-diameter fat particles may also be aggregated by platelets to cause fat emboli. A case of generalized fat embolism was reported by Pell in the past, in which the patient's initial illness was a femur fracture, and he died of severe pulmonary heart disease during treatment of the fracture. A forensic autopsy revealed the presence of intravascular fat emboli, which eventually revealed the true cause of death, “FES”21.

Respiratory system
The respiratory manifestations of FES are mainly related to the mechanism of blood circulation, and the risk factors of FES occurring outside the heart and lungs are that the damaged blood vessels, through which the fat particles are usually transported to the right ventricle, gradually enlarge in size as the blood circulates to the right ventricle, and at this time, only the blood flow rate and the vessel diameter are taken into account, which makes the aggregation of fat particles and fat embolization of the blood vessels relatively unlikely to occur. As fat particles are transported with blood from the right ventricle to the alveolar capillaries of the lungs, the vessel diameters become progressively smaller, making them relatively susceptible to fat particle aggregation and fat embolism. Patients with FES present with varying degrees of severity, from dyspnea to respiratory failure, depending on the number and degree of fat emboli in the alveolar vessels. Lindeque reported that 16 patients with FES had oxygen partial pressures below 7.3 kPa, while they treated a total of 28 patients with fractures, and FES was no less common13. This may suggest that the difference in oxygen partial pressure between patients with FES and the normal range reflects the severity of lung injury in FES.

Nervous system
The clinical manifestations of FES in the neurological system are more challenging to discern. Due to differences in the anatomical sites of fat emboli in cerebral blood vessels and in vascular function, patients with FES will present with a diversity of manifestations. However, overall, patients with FES have varying degrees of impaired consciousness. If clinicians lack sufficient experience in treating patients with FES, they may misdiagnose the neurological symptoms of FES as seizures, functional neurological disorders, or other neurological disorders. DeFroda28 reported a case of a young woman with FES of the brain who developed unusual neurological symptoms after undergoing intramedullary nailing, reaming, and fixation of a fracture of the femur. The specific case of brain death was only identified during the clinician's mortality discussion as a result of the presence of a considerable number of fat-embolized vessels in the brain29. A female patient who was undergoing total knee arthroplasty presented with nonconvulsive status epilepticus of a persistent nature. After antiepileptic treatment, the patient died. However, during the autopsy, it was discovered that the patient had suffered a cerebral infarction and that a large number of fat emboli were present in the cerebral vasculature30. These tragedies are attributed to the lack of clinicians' knowledge of the pathophysiology and pathology associated with fat emboli.

Bulger concluded that patients with FES, 59% of whom had neurologic symptoms, exhibited disparate outcomes. While a proportion of those with mild neurologic symptoms resolved on their own, another proportion of those with severe neurologic symptoms rapidly progressed to hemiparesis, blindness, and seizures within a short period of time. This was clearly related to the number and volume of fat particles entering the blood vessels of all levels of the brain9,31. It is proposed that, following surgical intervention for a fracture, clinicians should give due consideration to the possibility of FES in patients presenting with neurological symptoms (such as decreased level of consciousness), and that magnetic resonance imaging should be used to assess FES accumulation in the brain. An early and accurate diagnosis of FES by clinicians, based on the pathological features of the fat embolus, allows for more effective clinical management of the patient and thus improves the patient's prognosis32,33.

Skin
The appearance of petechial rashes on the skin is the most readily discernible indicator of FES, surpassing the detection of neurological symptoms. This phenomenon may be attributed to the accumulation of fat particles within the small blood vessels at the skin's extremities, resulting in obstruction of blood flow and the eventual formation of fat plugs that rupture these vessels. Capillaries are particularly susceptible to rupture, which can lead to petechiae. Previously, Tachakra proposed an explanation for the petechial rash phenomenon in FES based on the fat droplet-aortic arch hypothesis. However, this hypothesis is not consistent with the observed pathology of fat plugs in the circulation4. Furthermore, the petechial rash of FES may be exacerbated by the patient's own physiologic features, such as coagulation factor depletion or thrombocytopenia. This is related to the fact that the blood nonspecific recognition pattern relies on platelet restriction of the reticulation of microenvironmental substances34.

Retina
Cases in which FES is predominantly characterized in the eye are infrequently documented in medical literature. Patients with FES presenting with symptoms of blindness may be categorized by the clinician as having neurologic symptoms. In the absence of traumatic factors, there is no blood in the atrial fluid of the eye, which makes fat embolism difficult to detect by the clinician at the ocular site35. Additionally, it has been proposed that retinopathy-dominated FES may occur in patients who present with head exposure trauma. Our hypothesis is that in this scenario, the exposure trauma must be directly causally related to retinal FES36.

Treatment and management
One of the etiological theories of FES is the mechanical embolism theory of fat embolism. Here, we only use this etiological factor to discuss the potential FES drugs and management, but this does not imply that the two are equivalent concepts. In light of the pathogenic mechanisms of fat embolism, it is possible to hypothesize potential directions for pharmacological treatment programs, including alleviating steatotic inflammation, dissolving fat emboli, promoting lipolysis and metabolism, and preventing the aggregation of fat particles. The administration of the renin inhibitor aliskiren (preclinical research) was observed to exert a protective effect on the lungs of FES rats. This observed protective effect may have facilitated the metabolic breakdown of fat in the venous blood37. It remains to be seen whether a similar effect can be observed in human patients following fracture surgery, given that the FES in the rats in this experiment was induced by intravenous injection of fat. One limitation is the lack of knowledge regarding the volume, mass, rate, and duration of fat released into the bloodstream during a natural FES episode. Another animal study employing chlorosartan corroborated the aforementioned protective effect and additionally demonstrated its capacity for secondary protection38. The results of both studies indicate that the renin-angiotensin system may represent a potential therapeutic mechanism for treating patients with FES. Given the analogous formation principles of fat plugs and thrombosis, previous researchers have attempted to treat FES disease with heparin and dextrose, which are commonly used in thrombotic treatment. However, these attempts have been unsuccessful39,40.

Some small-scale research reports have pointed out the efficacy of corticosteroids in preventing FES in patients with traumatic injuries. Despite the limitations of the current evidence base, clinicians may administer these drugs to trauma patients at the appropriate time (weak evidence)11,34. The use of corticosteroids has been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of FES. This may be achieved by inhibiting the inflammatory response, slowing down platelet aggregation, and delaying the embolization of fat particles into the bloodstream41. The utilization of post-treatment corticosteroid regimens for trauma or fracture patients has been advocated in certain regions as "early appropriate care"42. At present, the claim that corticosteroid treatment significantly benefits patients with FES lacks strong evidence. Clinicians need to consider this viewpoint in light of the actual situation.

It is plausible that the incidence of FES could be reduced if fracture treatment procedures were enhanced. Studies conducted in Finland and the United States have demonstrated this. Furthermore, the implementation of improved surgical protocols for fracture treatment not only serves to reduce the incidence of FES but also enhances surgical outcomes in patients with fractures43,44,45,46.

Imaging
Reasons for using Imaging
The current laboratory protocols permit the examination of serum levels of substances associated with fat metabolism, including serum phospholipase A2 (sPLA2)47,48. However, such screening is merely superficial and lacks the depth necessary for clinical practice. In addition to blood disorders induced by FES, such as thrombocytopenia9,49, the physiology of such patients is deficient in coagulation-related substances. Therefore, we advise against creating monitoring protocols for such groups, given their limited applicability. Instead, the occurrence of FES in such patients should be considered in the context of the primary disease. Considering the pathological characteristics of fat emboli, it is advisable to employ effective techniques to identify potential embolization of fat emboli in the skull and thorax.

Chest FES
In cases where there is a suspicion of the presence of fat emboli in the heart and lungs, tomographic imaging (CT) can provide more detailed images, such as bilateral pulmonary ground-glass shadows on CT of the lungs50. Diffuse CT imaging can also be employed to demonstrate such lesions. The radiological manifestations of well-defined ground-glass shadows or ill-defined centrilobular nodules can be used as evidence for the suspicion of FES. However, the diagnosis of FES ultimately depends on the analysis of the presence of risk factors associated with the condition51. CT can be performed rapidly in most hospitals, facilitating the detection of small fat-embolic lesions. This has resulted in a more accurate interpretation of imaging data by clinicians.

Cerebral FES
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is indicated when a patient presents with suspected neurological symptoms associated with FES. Although CT has demonstrated excellent value in cases reported in the past, such as head CT subarachnoid hemorrhage with fat-dense material52, head CT multiple punctate infarct foci53, and the presence of a hypodense arterial sign in the left middle cerebral artery on a portable head CT (pHCT)54, its diagnostic value for FES remains limited. However, the diagnostic value of CT for the diagnosis of FES is limited by the accuracy of imaging55. Furthermore, CT is of limited value for imaging accuracy and can only be interpreted with a high degree of suspicion that the patient presents with FES and has real brain involvement. Compared with a CT examination, an MRI examination is more valuable. Prior literature has demonstrated that MRI of the brain can be used as a definitive diagnosis of early cerebral FES when clinicians are faced with clinical decision-making dilemmas56. Additionally, MRI can be used to assess the prognosis of patients with cerebral FES, as previously noted in the literature. In such cases, the severity of fat embolism lesions demonstrated by MRI has been observed to parallel the patient's clinical symptoms.

A systematic evaluation in the United States delineated three stages of disease progression and five specific MRI image findings in cerebral FES, as illustrated in Table 257. The typical manifestations of cerebral FES on MRI include the appearance of a "star field" pattern on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)58, which is a scattering of multiple small punctate high-signal foci in the cerebral white matter. This suggests acute microinfarction and cytotoxic edema. Furthermore, T2-weighted imaging and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences can discern high-signal lesions in the white matter and basal ganglia regions of the brain59. In general, MRI of the head is an effective method for diagnosing cerebral fat embolism, exhibiting high sensitivity60 and specificity61. When fat embolism in the brain is suspected, serial MRI scans should be performed for early diagnosis of FES and to assess the severity of brain injury62.

Diagnosis criteria
The accurate diagnosis of fat embolism currently hinges on the pathological examination of the affected tissue. Nevertheless, the site of fat embolism is defined as the blood vessels in FES. Given that blood vessels are non-substantial tissue, they are generally not recommended for localized biopsies for pathological testing. Moreover, even if a local biopsy is performed, it is likely to be conducted only on the localized skin (superficial vessels) where the rash is present. A local excisional biopsy of the deeper vessels where fat embolism is present, such as the middle cerebral artery, can only be performed during surgical procedures. No clinically available tests can be considered the gold standard for diagnosing FES when used in conjunction with other medical tests.

As illustrated in Table 3, Schoenfeld and Lindeque previously established their own commonly used standard references for the diagnosis of FES. While these are highly sensitive, they also have high false-positive rates and may not be of value for generalization in the 21st century, given the widespread availability of information technology11,13. The standard established by Gurd and Wilson appears to be the most clinically generalizable FES diagnostic criteria2,3.

In light of the findings from the clinical studies reviewed here and their case reports, it is recommended that a triad of clinical manifestations or signs, trauma history, and imaging features be established as the new diagnostic criteria for FES. Given that the pathomechanism of FES is the entry of fat particles into broken small blood vessels into the circulation, it can be inferred that this possibility arises from endogenous injury and trauma, as discussed in the previous section.

A common trigger for FES is sickle cell disease (SCD), characterized by the morphologic features of sickle-shaped erythrocytes. These cells are more susceptible to erythrocyte rupture, which induces localized inflammation in the vasculature. This endogenous inflammation in the vasculature increases the likelihood of vascular endothelial cell injury. Additionally, inflammatory blood vessels (which may have already ruptured) contribute to the development of FES. However, this process is systemic, meaning that a certain quantity of fat particles may be present in blood vessels throughout the body.

Within the orthopedic department of a hospital, trauma patients are most likely to be encountered. In such an environment, the incidental factors that may be present, such as gunshot wounds and automobile accidents, are less likely to occur. Instead, the focus is on treating burns and fractures. In the past, when medical technology was less developed, there were cases of FES induced by fracture repair surgery. This could have been a consequence of rupture or comminution of the bone at the site, with fatty tissue and blood vessels in the bone marrow also breaking down. Furthermore, specific trauma histories may be overlooked, including cosmetic surgery, organ transplants, and cesarean sections. These procedures are also prone to damage to adipose tissues that may not be readily apparent.

Accordingly, these categories of FES pathogenic factors are designated as risk factors and constitute the initial component of the recently devised diagnostic criteria. Secondly, the most reliable diagnostic evidence is imaging data. Therefore, we have added MRI as an additional basis for diagnosing cerebral FES, as shown in Table 2. Fatty plugs enter the cerebral blood vessels as part of the blood circulation. To accurately determine the shape, site of invasion, and size of the fat plugs, an MRI is necessary. Since fat emboli are far less well‑demonstrated on CT than on MRI, most lesions of cerebral fat embolism cannot be visualized on brain CT. Accordingly, brain MRI is the preferred examination for cerebral fat embolism syndrome. In rare cases, high‑resolution CT may suggest cerebral fat embolism syndrome.

To ascertain the presence of thoracic FES, it is recommended that the patient's chest be scanned with computed tomography. The presence of ground-glass shadows in both lungs is indicative of the distribution of fat emboli within the small alveolar vessels and capillaries. In light of the clinical suspicion, the imaging findings on lung X-rays (infiltrates) were still considered part of the diagnosis of chest FES. The remaining diagnostic criteria were consistent with Gurd's program. Table 4 summarizes our preliminary proposed diagnostic framework63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82. We drew on the Gurd diagnostic criteria and incorporated the risk factors into the diagnostic criteria. We also included the common clinical manifestations and typical auxiliary examinations of the four major systems (respiratory system, cardiovascular system, nervous system and blood system) that are most frequently affected by fat embolism into the diagnostic criteria. Additionally, autopsy results indicated that fat embolism can also affect the liver and kidneys. However, there are currently no imaging manifestations or specific indicators for the involvement of the liver and kidneys by fat embolism, so abnormalities in the liver and kidneys are not included in the diagnostic criteria. The proposed framework was not derived or validated in an independent patient cohort, and its sensitivity, specificity, thresholds, and clinical utility remain unknown. 

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Conclusions

FES remains a challenging condition due to its nonspecific presentation and limitations of existing diagnostic criteria. This review summarizes current knowledge and a preliminary proposed diagnostic framework integrating clinical manifestations, trauma history, and imaging findings to improve diagnostic accuracy and early recognition. The incorporation of advanced imaging, particularly MRI and CT, provides a more reliable basis for diagnosis than traditional approaches. However, limitations such as resource dependence a...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Disclosures

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the technical support provided by Ningbo Sixth Hospital. Dr. Yan Bo and Dr. Zhixiong Zhuang contributed equally and shared the role of first author.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

References

  1. Kosova E, Bergmark B, Piazza G. Fat embolism syndrome. Circulation. 2015;131(3):317-20.
  2. Gurd AR. Fat embolism: an aid to diagnosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1970;52(4):732-7.
  3. Gurd AR, Wilson RI. The fat embolism syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1974;56-B(3):408-16.
  4. Tachakra SS. Distribution of skin petechiae in fat embolism rash. Lancet. 1976;1(7954):284-5.
  5. Zhuang Z, Bo Y, Pan Y, Huang J. Case report: recovery of consciousness ahead of MRI image lesion information in cerebral fat embolism syndrome. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025;12:1566578.
  6. White T, Petrisor BA, Bhandari M. Prevention of fat embolism syndrome. Injury. 2006;37 Suppl 4:S59-67.
  7. Bo Y, Zhao F. Platelets as central hubs of inflammation. Front Immunol. 2025;16:1683553.
  8. Robert JH, et al. Fat embolism syndrome. Orthop Rev. 1993;22(5):567-71.
  9. Bulger EM, Smith DG, Maier RV, Jurkovich GJ. Fat embolism syndrome: a 10-year review. Arch Surg. 1997;132(4):435-9.
  10. Argyropoulou MI, et al. Heterotopic ossification of the knee joint in intensive care unit patients: early diagnosis with magnetic resonance imaging. Crit Care. 2006;10(5):R152.
  11. Schonfeld SA, et al. Fat embolism prophylaxis with corticosteroids: a prospective study in high-risk patients. Ann Intern Med. 1983;99(4):438-43.
  12. Chan KM, et al. Post-traumatic fat embolism: its clinical and subclinical presentations. J Trauma. 1984;24(1):45-9.
  13. Lindeque BG, et al. Fat embolism and the fat embolism syndrome: a double-blind therapeutic study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69(1):128-31.
  14. Kallenbach J, et al. “Low-dose” corticosteroid prophylaxis against fat embolism. J Trauma. 1987;27(10):1173-6.
  15. Fabian TC, et al. Fat embolism syndrome: prospective evaluation in 92 fracture patients. Crit Care Med. 1990;18(1):42-6.
  16. Kinjo Y, et al. Possible protective effect of milk, meat, and fish for cerebrovascular disease mortality in Japan. J Epidemiol. 1999;9(4):268-74.
  17. Gopinathan NR, et al. Early, reliable, utilitarian predictive factors for fat embolism syndrome in polytrauma patients. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2013;17(1):38-42.
  18. Sen RK, et al. Surgical stabilization of femur fractures in post-traumatic hypoxemic patients: when and why? Arch Trauma Res. 2014;3(2):e15433.
  19. Kanda N, et al. Prospective study examining the probability of cerebral fat embolism based on magnetic resonance imaging. Heliyon. 2023;9(3):e14073.
  20. Kim YH. Incidence of fat embolism syndrome after cemented or cementless bilateral simultaneous and unilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(6):730-9.
  21. Pell AC, et al. Fulminating fat embolism syndrome caused by paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(13):926-9.
  22. Christie J, et al. Transcardiac echocardiography during invasive intramedullary procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(3):450-5.
  23. Kwiatt ME, Seamon MJ. Fat embolism syndrome. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2013;3(1):64-8.
  24. Muller BP, et al. Clinical neuropathological conference. Dis Nerv Syst. 1964;25:376-81.
  25. Laub DR Jr, Laub DR. Fat embolism syndrome after liposuction: a case report and review of the literature. Ann Plast Surg. 1990;25(1):48-52.
  26. Mendoza-Morales RC, et al. A fatal case of systemic fat embolism resulting from gluteal injections of vitamin E for cosmetic enhancement. Forensic Sci Int. 2016;259:e1-4.
  27. Tsitsikas DA, et al. Bone marrow necrosis and fat embolism syndrome in sickle cell disease: increased susceptibility of patients with non-SS genotypes and a possible association with human parvovirus B19 infection. Blood Rev. 2014;28(1):23-30.
  28. DeFroda SF, Klinge SA. Fat embolism syndrome with cerebral fat embolism associated with long-bone fracture. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016;45(7):E515-21.
  29. Walshe CM, Cooper JD, Kossmann T, Hayes I, Iles L. Cerebral fat embolism syndrome causing brain death after long-bone fractures and acetazolamide therapy. Crit Care Resusc. 2007;9(2):184-6.
  30. Fernández-Torre JL, et al. Super-refractory nonconvulsive status epilepticus secondary to fat embolism: a clinical, electrophysiological, and pathological study. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;49:184-8.
  31. Jacobson DM, Terrence CF, Reinmuth OM. The neurologic manifestations of fat embolism. Neurology. 1986;36(6):847-51.
  32. Shaikh N. Emergency management of fat embolism syndrome. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2009;2(1):29-33.
  33. Parizel PM, et al. Early diagnosis of cerebral fat embolism syndrome by diffusion-weighted MRI: starfield pattern. Stroke. 2001;32(12):2942-4.
  34. Jaffe FA. Petechial hemorrhages: a review of pathogenesis. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1994;15(3):203-7.
  35. Nentwich MM, Remy M, Schaller UC. Ocular fat embolism syndrome. Int Ophthalmol. 2011;31(1):15-6.
  36. Agrawal A, McKibbin MA. Purtscher’s and Purtscher-like retinopathies: a review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2006;51(2):129-36.
  37. Fletcher AN, et al. The renin inhibitor aliskiren protects rat lungs from the histopathologic effects of fat embolism. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;82(2):338-44.
  38. Poisner A, et al. Losartan protects the lung from chronic cellular damage induced by fat embolism (LB512) [conference abstract]. FASEB J. 2014;28(S1):LB512.
  39. Lewis A, Pappas AM. Experimental fat embolism: evaluation of treatment with low molecular weight dextran. J Trauma. 1969;9(1):49-55.
  40. Sage RH, Tudor RW. Treatment of fat embolism with heparin. Br Med J. 1958;1(5080):1160-1.
  41. Bederman SS, Bhandari M, McKee MD, Schemitsch EH. Do corticosteroids reduce the risk of fat embolism syndrome in patients with long-bone fractures? A meta-analysis. Can J Surg. 2009;52(5):386-93.
  42. Tasker A, Kelly M. Managing trauma: the evolution from “early total care”/“damage control” to “early appropriate care.” J Trauma Orthop. 2014;2(2):66-70.
  43. Pape HC. Effects of changing strategies of fracture fixation on immunologic changes and systemic complications after multiple trauma: damage control orthopedic surgery. J Orthop Res. 2008;26(11):1478-84.
  44. Tanton J. L’embolie graisseuse traumatique. J Chir. 1914;12:287-96.
  45. Riska EB, et al. Prevention of fat embolism by early internal fixation of fractures in patients with multiple injuries. Injury. 1976;8(2):110-6.
  46. Bone LB, Johnson KD, Weigelt J, Scheinberg R. Early versus delayed stabilization of femoral fractures: a prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(3):336-40.
  47. Styles LA, et al. Phospholipase A2 levels in acute chest syndrome of sickle cell disease. Blood. 1996;87(6):2573-8.
  48. Ross AP. The value of serum lipase estimations in the fat embolism syndrome. Surgery. 1969;65(2):271-3.
  49. Vedrinne JM, et al. Bronchoalveolar lavage in trauma patients for diagnosis of fat embolism syndrome. Chest. 1992;102(5):1323-7.
  50. Shao J, et al. Postoperative complications of concomitant fat embolism syndrome, pulmonary embolism, and tympanic membrane perforation after tibiofibular fracture: a case report. World J Clin Cases. 2021;9(2):476-81.
  51. Newbigin K, et al. Fat embolism syndrome: state-of-the-art review focused on pulmonary imaging findings. Respir Med. 2016;113:93-100.
  52. Namer IJ. Cerebral fat embolism studied with MRI and SPECT. Neuroradiology. 1993;35(3):199-201.
  53. Akoh CC, Schick C, Otero J, Karam M. Fat embolism syndrome after femur fracture fixation: a case report. Iowa Orthop J. 2014;34:55-62.
  54. Malik AM. Portable head computed tomography in the diagnosis of cerebral fat embolism secondary to cardiac surgery. Neurohospitalist. 2012;2(4):154-5.
  55. Kassimi M, et al. Cerebral fat embolism syndrome after long bone fracture: a case report. Radiol Case Rep. 2022;17(2):283-5.
  56. Takahashi M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in cerebral fat embolism: correlation with clinical manifestations. J Trauma. 1999;46(2):324-7.
  57. Kuo KH, et al. Dynamic MR imaging patterns of cerebral fat embolism: a systematic review with illustrative cases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(6):1052-7.
  58. Huang CK, et al. Isolated and early-onset cerebral fat embolism syndrome in a multiply injured patient: a rare case. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):377.
  59. Andreux F, et al. Reversible encephalopathy associated with cholesterol embolism syndrome: magnetic resonance imaging and pathological findings. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78(2):180-2.
  60. Parchani A, Shaikh N, Bhat V, Kattren MA. Fat embolism syndrome: clinical and imaging considerations: case report and review of literature. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2008;12(1):32-6.
  61. Huang GS, Dunham CM, Chance EA. Occurrence of numerous cerebral white matter hyperintensities in trauma patients with cerebral fat embolism: a systematic review and report of two cases. Cureus. 2023;15(9):e45450.
  62. Sasano N, et al. Cerebral fat embolism diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging at one, eight, and 50 days after hip arthroplasty: a case report. Can J Anaesth. 2004;51(9):875-9.
  63. Algahtani HA, et al. Cerebral fat embolism syndrome: diagnostic challenges and catastrophic outcomes: a case series. J Yeungnam Med Sci. 2023;40(2):207-11.
  64. Alzayadneh MA, Alsherbini KA. A rare case of progressive encephalopathy in a sickle cell trait patient: a case report. Cureus. 2023;15(9):e45936.
  65. Aravapalli A, Fox J, Lazaridis C. Cerebral fat embolism and the “starfield” pattern: a case report. Cases J. 2009;2:212.
  66. Bassell-Hawkins J, et al. Fat embolism syndrome after knee arthroscopy in a pediatric patient. Chest. 2023;163(3):e107-10.
  67. den Otter LAS, Vermin B, Goeijenbier M. Fat embolism syndrome in a patient who sustained a femoral neck fracture: a case report. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:1058824.
  68. Dhooghe NS, et al. Fat embolism after autologous facial fat grafting. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(3):231-8.
  69. Dunkel J, et al. Cerebral fat embolism: clinical presentation, diagnostic steps, and long-term follow-up. Eur Neurol. 2017;78(3-4):181-7.
  70. Figueroa D, et al. Cerebral and pulmonary fat embolism after unilateral total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today. 2019;5(4):431-4.
  71. Kadar A, et al. Case 39-2021: a 26-year-old woman with respiratory failure and altered mental status. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(26):2464-74.
  72. Kwon J, Coimbra R. Fat embolism syndrome after trauma: what you need to know. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2024;97(4):505-13.
  73. Nathan CL, et al. Cerebral fat embolism syndrome in sickle cell disease without evidence of shunt. eNeurologicalSci. 2019;14:19-20.
  74. Oyedeji O, et al. Complete neurologic recovery of cerebral fat embolism syndrome in sickle cell disease. Cureus. 2022;14(9):e29111.
  75. Peters ST, et al. The fat embolism syndrome as a cause of paraplegia. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2018;6:2050313X18789318.
  76. Piuzzi NS, et al. Paradoxical cerebral fat embolism in revision hip surgery. Case Rep Orthop. 2014;2014:140757.
  77. Pollak S, Vycudilik W. Pulmonary lipids in fatal burns. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1981;93(4):111-7. German.
  78. Recinos S, et al. A rare case of fat embolism syndrome secondary to abdominal liposuction and gluteal fat infiltration. J Surg Case Rep. 2020;2020(12):rjaa441.
  79. Rostagno C, et al. Severe neurologic impairment and respiratory failure after fall and hip fracture in an elderly woman. Clin Case Rep. 2021;9(12):e05145.
  80. Salimi Z, et al. A rare case of cerebral fat embolism with no respiratory or dermatologic involvement. Cureus. 2022;14(2):e22192.
  81. Sangani V, et al. Fat embolism syndrome in a sickle cell β-thalassemia patient with osteonecrosis: an uncommon presentation in a young adult. J Investig Med High Impact Case Rep. 2021;9:23247096211012266.
  82. Scarpino M, et al. From diagnosis to therapeutic management: cerebral fat embolism, a clinical challenge. Int J Gen Med. 2019;12:39-48.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Reprints and Permissions

Tags

Diagnostic CriteriaClinical ManifestationsTrauma HistoryImaging TechniquesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultisystem DysfunctionPathophysiologyManagement StrategiesMolecular Mechanisms
Contact Us
Recommend to Library

Privacy

Terms of Use

Policies

Copyright © 2026 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved.