Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewPubMedOpen access

Advanced methods to mechanically isolate stromal vascular fraction: A concise review.

You X., Gao J., Yao Y.

Narrative Review, published in Regen Ther (2024) — 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
Narrative Review
Journal
Regen Ther (2024)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
38571891
PMCID
PMC10987671
DOI
10.1016/j.reth.2024.03.020
Citations
12

Abstract (original English)

Adipose tissue is a highly attractive reservoir of stem cells due to its accessibility and abundance, and the SVF within it holds great promise for stem cell-based therapies. The use of mechanical methods for SVF isolation from adipose tissue is preferred over enzymatic methods, as it can be readily applied in clinical settings without additional processing steps. However, there is a lack of consensus on the optimal approach for mechanically isolating SVF. This comprehensive review aims to present and compare the latest mechanical isolation methods for SVF from adipose tissue, including centrifugation, filtration/washing, emulsification, vibration, and mincing/adiponizing. Each of these methods possesses unique advantages and limitations, and yet, no conclusive evidence has emerged demonstrating the superiority of one approach over the others, primarily due to the dearth of well-controlled prospective studies in this field.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

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.