Tissue harvest by means of suction-assisted or third-generation ultrasound-assisted lipoaspiration has no effect on osteogenic potential of human adipose-derived stromal cells.
Panetta NJ., Gupta DM., Kwan MD., Wan DC., Commons GW., Longaker MT.
Prospective Study with a reported sample of 3, published in Plast Reconstr Surg (2009) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- 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
- Prospective Study
- Journal
- Plast Reconstr Surg (2009)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- 3
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 19568046
- DOI
- 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ab10cd
- Citations
- 24
Abstract (original English)
Background Human adipose-derived stromal cells readily undergo osteogenic differentiation in vitro and in vivo. Thus, interest in their potential role in skeletal tissue engineering continues to escalate. Very little is known regarding the effects that energy delivered by means of third-generation ultrasound-assisted lipoaspiration may have on the osteogenic potential of these cells. The authors investigated whether differences in adipose-derived stromal cell yield, and the in vitro proliferation and osteogenic potential of these cells obtained by suction-assisted lipoaspiration or third-generation ultrasound-assisted lipoaspiration, exist. Methods Adipose-derived stromal cells were harvested from lipoaspiration specimens of patients undergoing elective suction-assisted lipoaspiration and third-generation ultrasound-assisted lipoaspiration. Harvested cells were seeded to evaluate proliferative capacity and in vitro osteogenic potential. Alkaline phosphatase and alizarin red staining were performed to evaluate early and terminal osteogenic differentiation, respectively. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis was used to examine osteogenic gene expression patterns of RUNX2/CFBA1 (early differentiation) and osteocalcin (late differentiation). Results No significant differences in the proliferative capacity (n = 3), alkaline phosphatase staining (n = 3), or extra
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.