Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMedOpen access

A 3-step Mechanical Digestion Method to Harvest Adipose-derived Stromal Vascular Fraction.

Tiryaki T., Condé-Green A., Cohen SR., Canikyan S., Kocak P.

Laboratory Study with a reported sample of 35 on Face & Skin, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2020)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
35
Source database
PubMed
PMID
32309095
PMCID
PMC7159941
DOI
10.1097/GOX.0000000000002652
Citations
27

Abstract (original English)

Background Adipose stromal vascular fraction (SVF) isolation with enzymatic digestion is the gold standard, but is expensive, having practical and legal concerns. The alternative mechanical SVF isolation methods provide lower cell yields as they employ either centrifugation, emulsification, or digestion steps alone. We combined mechanical processing with buffer incubation and centrifugation steps into an isolation method called "mechanical digestion" and compared the cell yields with that of enzymatic digestion. Methods A total of 40-mL lipoaspirate was harvested from 35 women undergoing liposuction and was submitted to conventional enzymatic digestion for SVF isolation or mechanical digestion using a closed unit harnessing 3 ports with blades, followed by buffer incubation and centrifugation. Culture of the SVFs and flow cytometry were performed. Results The SVF cell yield obtained by enzymatic digestion was significantly higher 3.38 × 10 6 /mL (±3.63; n = 35) than that obtained by mechanical digestion 1.34 × 10 6 /mL (±1.69; n = 35), P = 0.015. The average cell viability was 82.86% ± 10.68 after enzymatic digestion versus 85.86% ± 5.74 after mechanical digestion, which was not significant. Mechanical digested SVF expressed 2-fold higher stem cell surface markers compared with enzymatically digested SVF. Mechanical digestion was less time consuming, cost effective, and did not

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research