Comparison of intraoperative procedures for isolation of clinical grade stromal vascular fraction for regenerative purposes: a systematic review.
van Dongen JA., Tuin AJ., Spiekman M., Jansma J., van der Lei B., Harmsen MC.
Systematic Review, published in J Tissue Eng Regen Med (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- J Tissue Eng Regen Med (2017)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 28084666
- DOI
- 10.1002/term.2407
- Citations
- 65
Abstract (original English)
Intraoperative application of the stromal vascular fraction (SVF) of adipose tissue requires a fast and efficient isolation procedure of adipose tissue. This review was performed to systematically assess and compare procedures currently used for the intraoperative isolation of cellular SVF (cSVF) and tissue SVF (tSVF) that still contain the extracellular matrix. Pubmed, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials databases were searched for studies that compare procedures for intraoperative isolation of SVF (searched 28 September 2016). Outcomes of interest were cell yield, viability of cells, composition of SVF, duration, cost and procedure characteristics. Procedures were subdivided into procedures resulting in a cSVF or tSVF. Thirteen out of 3038 studies, evaluating 18 intraoperative isolation procedures, were considered eligible. In general, cSVF and tSVF intraoperative isolation procedures had similar cell yield, cell viability and SVF composition compared to a nonintraoperative (i.e. culture laboratory-based collagenase protocol) control group within the same studies. The majority of intraoperative isolation procedures are less time consuming than nonintraoperative control groups, however. Intraoperative isolation procedures are less time-consuming than nonintraoperative control groups with similar cell yield, viability of cells and composition of SVF, a
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
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.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.