Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMedOpen access

Shift toward Mechanical Isolation of Adipose-derived Stromal Vascular Fraction: Review of Upcoming Techniques.

Condé-Green A., Kotamarti VS., Sherman LS., Keith JD., Lee ES., Granick MS.

Systematic Review on Face & Skin, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2016) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
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
Systematic Review
Journal
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2016)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
27757339
PMCID
PMC5055005
DOI
10.1097/GOX.0000000000001017
Citations
53

Abstract (original English)

Standard isolation of adipose stromal vascular fraction (SVF) requires the use of collagenase and is considered more than "minimally manipulated" by current good manufacturing practice requirements. Alternatively, nonenzymatic isolation methods have surfaced using physical forces to separate cells from the adipose matrix. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the use of mechanical isolation protocols and compare the results. The implication for use as a standard procedure in practice is discussed. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed on mechanical isolation of SVF with a search of six terms on PubMed and Medline databases. One thousand sixty-six articles were subject to evaluation by predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results Two level 2 evidence articles and 7 in vitro studies were selected. SVF was isolated using automated closed systems or by subjecting the lipoaspirate to centrifugation only or by shaking or vortexing followed by centrifugation. Six articles reported isolation in laboratory settings and three inside the operating room. Stromal vascular cells expressed CD34, and CD44, CD73, CD90, and CD105, and differentiated along adipogenic and osteogenic lineages. When compared with enzymatic methods, mechanical isolation required less time but yielded fewer cells. Both case-control studies reported improved volume r

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 evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research