Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27153799›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2016

Suction assisted liposuction does not impair the regenerative potential of adipose derived stem cells.

Dominik Duscher, Anna Luan, Robert C Rennert, David Atashroo, Zeshaan N Maan, Elizabeth A Brett, Alexander J Whittam, Natalie Ho, Michelle Lin, Michael S Hu and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Therapeutic potential of adipose tissue in aesthetic medicine.World journal of experimental medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Autologous fat grafting: Harvesting techniques.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2018
    Review
  16. A Novel Porcine Model for Future Studies of Cell-enriched Fat Grafting.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. [Research progress of the donor factors and experimental factors affecting adipogenic differentiation of adipose derived stem cells].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Dominik DuscherHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. dominikduscher@me.com.
Anna LuanHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Robert C RennertHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
David AtashrooHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Zeshaan N MaanHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Elizabeth A BrettHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Alexander J WhittamHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Natalie HoHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Michelle LinHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Michael S HuHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Graham G WalmsleyHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Raphael WennySection of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
Manfred SchmidtSection of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
Arndt F SchillingDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Hans-Günther MachensDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Georg M HuemerSection of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
Derrick C WanHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Michael T LongakerHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Geoffrey C GurtnerHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. ggurtner@stanford.edu.
Stanford University · USJohannes Kepler University of Linz · ATTechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

Reversal of Progenitor Cell Deficits in DiabetesR01DK074095 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI GURTNER, GEOFFREY C · 2005 to 2025
$6.4M
Targeting HIF-1 alpha Dysfunction in Complications of AgingR01AG025016 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GURTNER, GEOFFREY C · 2004 to 2015
$3.5M
Osteogenic Enrichment of Adipose Derived Stromal CellsR01DE021683 · NIDCR · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GURTNER, GEOFFREY C, LONGAKER, MICHAEL T · 2012 to 2016
$2.0M
Enhancing Bcl-2 Expression for Bone Regeneration.R21DE024230 · NIDCR · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LONGAKER, MICHAEL T · 2014 to 2015
$443k
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG025016NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE021683NIDCR NIH HHS R21 DE024230NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK074095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) have been identified as a population of multipotent cells with promising applications in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. ASCs are abundant in fat tissue, which can be safely harvested through the minimally invasive procedure of liposuction. However, there exist a variety of different harvesting methods, with unclear impact on ASC regenerative potential. The aim of this study was thus to compare the functionality of ASCs derived from the common technique of suction-assisted lipoaspiration (SAL) versus resection.

methodsHuman adipose tissue was obtained from paired abdominoplasty and SAL samples from three female donors, and was processed to isolate the stromal vascular fraction. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting was used to determine ASC yield, and cell viability was assayed. Adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation capacity were assessed in vitro using phenotypic staining and quantification of gene expression. Finally, ASCs were applied in an in vivo model of tissue repair to evaluate their regenerative potential.

resultsSAL specimens provided significantly fewer ASCs when compared to excised fat tissue, however, with equivalent viability. SAL-derived ASCs demonstrated greater expression of the adipogenic markers FABP-4 and LPL, although this did not result in a difference in adipogenic differentiation. There were no differences detected in osteogenic differentiation capacity as measured by alkaline phosphatase, mineralization or osteogenic gene expression. Both SAL- and resection-derived ASCs enhanced significantly cutaneous healing and vascularization in vivo, with no significant difference between the two groups.

conclusionSAL provides viable ASCs with full capacity for multi-lineage differentiation and tissue regeneration, and is an effective method of obtaining ASCs for cell-based therapies.

Indexed as

RegenerationAbdominoplastyAdipogenesisAdipose TissueAdultAnimalsCell CountCell DifferentiationCell LineageCell SurvivalFemaleHumansLipectomyMaleMiceMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID27153799
PMCPMC4859988
OpenAlexW2345867153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.