Comparing mechanical and enzymatic isolation procedures to isolate adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction: A systematic review.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 CELL BIOLOGY
Wound Repair and Regeneration Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1111/wrr.13228
Mustafa Uguten, Nanouk van der Sluis, Linda Vriend, J H Coert, Martin C Harmsen, Berend van der Lei, Joris A van Dongen
{"title":"Comparing mechanical and enzymatic isolation procedures to isolate adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction: A systematic review.","authors":"Mustafa Uguten, Nanouk van der Sluis, Linda Vriend, J H Coert, Martin C Harmsen, Berend van der Lei, Joris A van Dongen","doi":"10.1111/wrr.13228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The stromal vascular fraction of adipose tissue has gained popularity as regenerative therapy for tissue repair. Both enzymatic and mechanical intraoperative SVF isolation procedures exist. To date, the quest for the preferred isolation procedure persists, due to the absence of standardised yield measurements and a defined clinical threshold. This systematic review is an update of the systematic review published in 2018, where guidelines were proposed to improve and standardise SVF isolation procedures. An elaborate data search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted from September 2016 to date. A total of 26 full-text articles met inclusion criteria, evaluating 33 isolation procedures (11 enzymatic and 22 mechanical). In general, enzymatic and mechanical SVF isolation procedures yield comparable outcomes concerning cell yield (2.3-18.0 × 10<sup>5</sup> resp. 0.03-26.7 × 10<sup>5</sup> cells/ml), and cell viability (70%-99% resp. 46%-97.5%), while mechanical procedures are less time consuming (8-20 min vs. 50-210 min) and cost-efficient. However, as most studies used poorly validated outcome measures on SVF characterisation, it still remains unclear which intraoperative SVF isolation method is preferred. Future studies are recommended to implement standardised guidelines to standardise methods and improve comparability between studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":23864,"journal":{"name":"Wound Repair and Regeneration","volume":" ","pages":"1008-1021"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11584359/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound Repair and Regeneration","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.13228","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The stromal vascular fraction of adipose tissue has gained popularity as regenerative therapy for tissue repair. Both enzymatic and mechanical intraoperative SVF isolation procedures exist. To date, the quest for the preferred isolation procedure persists, due to the absence of standardised yield measurements and a defined clinical threshold. This systematic review is an update of the systematic review published in 2018, where guidelines were proposed to improve and standardise SVF isolation procedures. An elaborate data search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted from September 2016 to date. A total of 26 full-text articles met inclusion criteria, evaluating 33 isolation procedures (11 enzymatic and 22 mechanical). In general, enzymatic and mechanical SVF isolation procedures yield comparable outcomes concerning cell yield (2.3-18.0 × 105 resp. 0.03-26.7 × 105 cells/ml), and cell viability (70%-99% resp. 46%-97.5%), while mechanical procedures are less time consuming (8-20 min vs. 50-210 min) and cost-efficient. However, as most studies used poorly validated outcome measures on SVF characterisation, it still remains unclear which intraoperative SVF isolation method is preferred. Future studies are recommended to implement standardised guidelines to standardise methods and improve comparability between studies.

比较机械和酶分离脂肪基质血管部分的方法:系统综述。
作为组织修复的再生疗法,脂肪组织的基质血管部分越来越受欢迎。目前有酶法和机械法两种术中 SVF 分离程序。迄今为止,由于缺乏标准化的产量测量方法和明确的临床阈值,人们一直在寻找首选的分离程序。本系统综述是对 2018 年发表的系统综述的更新,当时提出了改进和规范 SVF 分离程序的指南。从 2016 年 9 月至今,我们在 MEDLINE(PubMed)、EMBASE(Ovid)和 Cochrane 对照试验中央注册中心进行了精心的数据检索。共有26篇全文文章符合纳入标准,评估了33种分离程序(11种酶法和22种机械法)。一般来说,酶法和机械法分离 SVF 的细胞产量(2.3-18.0 × 105 个细胞/ml,0.03-26.7 × 105 个细胞/ml)和细胞活力(70%-99%,46%-97.5%)结果相当,而机械法更耗时(8-20 分钟,50-210 分钟),成本效益更高。然而,由于大多数研究使用的 SVF 特征描述结果测量方法验证不充分,目前仍不清楚哪种术中 SVF 分离方法更可取。建议未来的研究采用标准化指南来规范方法,提高研究之间的可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Wound Repair and Regeneration
Wound Repair and Regeneration 医学-皮肤病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
71
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Wound Repair and Regeneration provides extensive international coverage of cellular and molecular biology, connective tissue, and biological mediator studies in the field of tissue repair and regeneration and serves a diverse audience of surgeons, plastic surgeons, dermatologists, biochemists, cell biologists, and others. Wound Repair and Regeneration is the official journal of The Wound Healing Society, The European Tissue Repair Society, The Japanese Society for Wound Healing, and The Australian Wound Management Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信