Comparing mechanical and enzymatic isolation procedures to isolate adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction: A systematic review.

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• 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

Abstract (original English)

The stromal vascular fraction of adipose tissue has gained popularity as regenerative therapy for tissue repair. Both enzymatic and mechanical intraoperative SVF isolation procedures exist. To date, the quest for the preferred isolation procedure persists, due to the absence of standardised yield measurements and a defined clinical threshold. This systematic review is an update of the systematic review published in 2018, where guidelines were proposed to improve and standardise SVF isolation procedures. An elaborate data search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted from September 2016 to date. A total of 26 full-text articles met inclusion criteria, evaluating 33 isolation procedures (11 enzymatic and 22 mechanical). In general, enzymatic and mechanical SVF isolation procedures yield comparable outcomes concerning cell yield (2.3-18.0 × 10 5 resp. 0.03-26.7 × 10 5 cells/ml), and cell viability (70%-99% resp. 46%-97.5%), while mechanical procedures are less time consuming (8-20 min vs. 50-210 min) and cost-efficient. However, as most studies used poorly validated outcome measures on SVF characterisation, it still remains unclear which intraoperative SVF isolation method is preferred. Future studies are recommended to implement standardised guidelines to standardise methods and improve comparability between studies

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

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