Adipose-derived stem cells: Comparison between two methods of isolation for clinical applications.
Raposio E., Simonacci F., Perrotta RE.
Laboratory Study, published in Ann Med Surg (Lond) (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Ann Med Surg (Lond) (2017)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 28736612
- PMCID
- PMC5508488
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.amsu.2017.07.018
- Citations
- 63
Abstract (original English)
Background Adipose-derived stem cells are recognized as being an effective mesenchymal stem cell population with enormous potential in different fields of regenerative medicine and stem cell therapy. Although there is unanimous agreement on the harvesting procedure for adipose tissue, there are various protocols for adipose-derived stem cell isolation. The aim of this study was compare two methods of adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) isolation, one based on a mechanical + enzymatic (ME) procedure and the other one exclusively mechanical (MC), in order to determine which one was superior to the other in accordance with current European and US legislation. Methods We reported step by step the two different methods ASCs isolation by comparing them. The ME procedure included the use of a centrifuge, an incubator and collagenase digestion solution (Collagenase NB 6 GMP Grade 17458; Serva GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany). The MC procedure was performed by vibrating shaker and centrifuge, both placed in a laminar airflow bench. Results With the ME procedure, a mean of 9.06 × 10 5 ASCs (range, 8.4 to 9.72 × 10 5 ; SD ± 6.6 × 10 5 ) was collected, corresponding to 25.9% of the total number of harvested cells. With the MC procedure, a mean of 5 × 10 5 ASCs (range: 4.0 to 6.0 × 10 5 ; SD, ±1 × 10 5 ) was collected, corresponding to 5% of the total number of harvested cells. Conclusion Based on
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.