A Multivariate Meta-Analysis for Optimizing Cell Counts When Using the Mechanical Processing of Lipoaspirate for Regenerative Applications.
Zinger G., Kepes N., Kenett R., Peyser A., Sharon-Gabbay R.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 117, published in Pharmaceutics (2023) — 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
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Pharmaceutics (2023)
- Country
- Switzerland
- Reported sample size
- 117
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 38140078
- PMCID
- PMC10747600
- DOI
- 10.3390/pharmaceutics15122737
Abstract (original English)
Lipoaspirate has become the preferred source for regenerative cells. The mechanical processing of lipoaspirate has advantages over enzymatic processing but has a lower yield of regenerative cells. A review of the literature shows different techniques of extraction, but the ideal method or combination has not been determined. Methods A comprehensive literature search was focused on the mechanical processing of lipoaspirate, without the use of enzymes. Data from the articles were integrated by utilizing a multivariate meta-analysis approach and used to create a statistical-based predictive model for a combination of multiple variables. Results Starting with 10,000 titles, 159 articles were reviewed, and 6 met the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. The six studies included data on 117 patients. Sixteen factors were analyzed and six were identified as significant. The predictive profilers indicated that the optimal combination to maximize the cell yield was: a centrifuge force of 2000× g , a centrifuge time of 10 min, a cannula diameter of 2 mm, and an intra-syringe number of passes of 30. The optimal patient factors were a higher BMI and younger age. Conclusions The novelty of the method used here was in combining data across different studies to understand the effect of the individual factors and in the optimization of their combination for mechanical lipoaspirate processing.
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.