Level B· Emerging Clinical Evidence
Comparing mechanical and enzymatic isolation procedures to isolate adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction: A systematic review
Uguten M., van der Sluis N., Harmsen M.C., van Dongen J.A.
Reviewed 26 articles covering 33 SVF isolation procedures (11 enzymatic, 22 mechanical): comparable cell yield and viability, but mechanical methods were faster and cheaper.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Wound Repair and Regeneration (2024)
- Country
- Netherlands
- Sample size
- —
- Follow-up
- Not applicable (procedure comparison)
- PMID
- 39444305
- DOI
- 10.1111/wrr.13228
What was studied
Which SVF isolation approach gives better cell yield, viability, processing time and cost.
Methods
- • Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL from September 2016 onward.
Key findings
- • Cell yield: enzymatic 2.3–18.0 × 10⁵ versus mechanical 0.03–26.7 × 10⁵ cells/mL.
- • Viability: enzymatic 70–99% versus mechanical 46–97.5%.
- • Processing time: mechanical 8–20 minutes versus enzymatic 50–210 minutes.
Limitations
- • No defined clinical threshold for adequate cell yield exists.
- • Most studies reported their methods poorly.
What this study does not prove
- • Does not show which isolation method produces better clinical outcomes.
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • Limited follow-up cannot indicate long-term outcomes.
Clinical interpretation
Essential context when reading SVF literature: 'SVF' is not the same product across studies.
Evidence level: Emerging Clinical Evidence