Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMed

An In Vitro Study of the Effects of Mechanical and Enzymatic Isolation of Stromal Vascular Fraction on Wound Healing.

Dai LG., Huang NC., Kang LY., Fu KY., Hsieh PS., Dai NT.

Laboratory Study on Chronic Wound, published in Ann Plast Surg (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Laboratory Study
Journal
Ann Plast Surg (2022)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
35225844
DOI
10.1097/SAP.0000000000003087
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

Abstract The adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction (SVF) is considered to be an attractive source of stem cells in cell therapy. Besides stem cells, it also contains functional cells, such as macrophages, precursor cells, somatic stem cells, and pericytes. Collagenase digestion is the most frequently used method to isolate SVF, but it is time-consuming and costly and has some problems, such as infectious agents and immune reactions. In this research, we compared the yield, cell population ratios, and cell viability when isolating SVF by the ultrasonic physics (U-SVF) method and traditional enzymatic method (E-SVF). Then, we isolated exosomes from U-SVF and E-SVF, respectively, and cocultured them with fibroblasts to investigate the potential of applying this cell secretion in wound repair. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the ultrasonic method and enzymatic method in terms of cell viability, cell numbers, or the expression of CD markers of stem cells. However, exosome analysis identified a greater number and smaller size of exosome particles obtained by U-SVF. In terms of cell proliferation efficiency, although the proliferation efficiency of U-SVF was lower than that of E-SVF. Trilineage differentiation experiments revealed that both E-SVF and U-SVF had good differentiation ability, owing to high stem cell content. Finally, E-SVF and U-SV

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueStem CellsStromal CellsStromal Vascular FractionWound Healing

Browse all related research

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

Related research