ArticleAesthetic surgery journal2025
Mechanical Processing of Lipoaspirate With a Fluidic Device Platform Promotes Wound Healing Transcriptional Programs and Angiogenesis In Vitro.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recombinant Platelet-Derived Growth Factor BB vs Autologous Nanofat to Enhance Recovery After COAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Integrated Fluidic Platform for Washing and Mechanical Processing of Lipoaspirate for Downstream Fat Grafting and Regenerative Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMechanical processing of lipoaspirate (LA) produces a stromal vascular fraction (SVF) without enzymatic digestion for use in aesthetic, surgical, and regenerative applications. We recently presented novel device technologies that increased mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) content relative to standard nanofat (NF) processing.
objectivesHere, we introduce a third technology designed to enhance fluid shear forces and explore the impact of mechanical processing on regenerative potential in vitro.
methodsHuman LA samples were processed with our previously reported emulsification micronization device and filtration device, and then optimized using a new shearing device (SD). Results were analyzed for total cell count, viability, and percentages of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) and MSCs compared to manual NF processing, both immediately and following 24-hour culture. Expression of genes related to wound healing was quantified by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and angiogenic capacity was determined with an in vitro 3-dimensional sprouting assay.
resultsThe SD did not significantly affect MSC recovery or viability, but EPCs were enriched in a shear stress-dependent manner. Gene expression was not altered immediately after processing, but after culture we noted changes to wound-healing transcriptional programs that were consistently stronger for our devices than NF. Differences were statistically significant for CXCL1, IL1β, IL6, CSF3, and COL1A2. Notably, angiogenic vessel sprouting was significantly enhanced for our devices compared to NF.
conclusionsMechanical processing of lipoaspirate with our 3-device platform resulted in greater enrichment of stem and progenitor cells, activation of genes implicated in wound healing, and induction of angiogenesis in vitro relative to NF. Future studies will ascertain potential implications in vivo for all indications that currently utilize NF, as well as automate the process within an integrated system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.