Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMed

In-Vitro Comparative Examination of the Effect of Stromal Vascular Fraction Isolated by Mechanical and Enzymatic Methods on Wound Healing.

Tiryaki KT., Cohen S., Kocak P., Canikyan Turkay S., Hewett S.

Laboratory Study with a reported sample of 10 on Chronic Wound, published in Aesthet Surg J (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
Aesthet Surg J (2020)
Country
England
Reported sample size
10
Source database
PubMed
PMID
32514571
DOI
10.1093/asj/sjaa154
Citations
23

Abstract (original English)

Background Enzymatic digestion has been the gold standard for stromal vascular fraction (SVF) isolation but remains expensive and raises practical and legal concerns. Mechanical SVF isolation methods have been known to produce lower cell yields, but may potentially produce a more robust product by preserving the extracellular matrix niche. Objectives The aim of this study was to compare mechanically dissociated SVF (M-SVF) and enzymatically digested SVF (E-SVF) in terms of wound-healing efficacy. Methods Lipoaspirate was partitioned into 2 equal groups and processed by either mechanical or enzymatic isolation methods. After SVF isolation, cell counts and viabilities were determined by flow cytometry and cell proliferation rates were measured by the WST-1 test. A wound-healing scratch assay test, which is commonly used to model in-vitro wound healing, was performed with both cell cocktails. Collagen type 1 (Col1A) gene expression level, which is known for its role in wound healing, was also measured for both groups. Results As predicted, E-SVF isolated more cells (mean [standard deviation], 1.74 [3.63] × 106/mL, n = 10, P = 0.015) than M-SVF (0.94 [1.69] × 106/mL, n = 10, P = 0.015), but no significant difference was observed in cell viability. However, M-SVF expressed over 2-fold higher levels of stem cell surface markers and a 10% higher proliferation rate compared with E-SVF.

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
Adipose TissueExtracellular MatrixHumansStem CellsStromal CellsWound Healing

Browse all related research

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

Related research