Non-enzymatic methods for isolation of stromal vascular fraction and adipose-derived stem cells: 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)

Background Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) and the stromal vascular fraction (SVF) have garnered substantial interest in regenerative medicine due to their potential to treat a wide range of conditions. Traditional enzymatic methods for isolating these cells face challenges such as high costs, lengthy processing time, and regu-latory complexities. Aim This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and practicality of non-enzymatic, mechanical methods for isolating SVF and ADSCs, comparing these to conventional enzymatic approaches. Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases. Studies were selected based on inclusion criteria focused on non-enzymatic isolation methods for SVF and ADSCs from adipose tissue. The risk of bias was assessed, and a qualitative synthesis of findings was performed due to the methodological heterogeneity of the included studies. Results Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting various mechanical techniques such as centrifugation, vortexing, and ultrasonic cavitation. The review identified significant variability in cell yield and viability, and the integrity of isolated cells across different non-enzymatic methods compared to enzymatic procedures. Despite some advantages of mechanical methods, includi

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.