Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41088425›Full record

SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2025

Mechanical isolation of stromal vascular fraction from adipose tissue: methods and cellular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Marcos Sforza, Olga Ivanenko, Nazanin Biabani, Lara Sforza, Deepak M Kalaskar, Zahra Mohri, Afshin Mosahebi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stem cell research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors.

Marcos SforzaDepartment of Surgical Biotechnology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, Royal Free Campus, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK. marcos.sforza.21@ucl.ac.uk.
Olga IvanenkoDepartment of Surgical Biotechnology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, Royal Free Campus, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
Nazanin BiabaniInstitute of Psychiatry, King's College London, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.
Lara SforzaDepartment of Surgical Biotechnology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, Royal Free Campus, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
Deepak M KalaskarDepartment of Surgical Biotechnology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, Royal Free Campus, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
Zahra MohriDepartment of Surgical Biotechnology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, Royal Free Campus, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
Afshin MosahebiDepartment of Surgical Biotechnology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, Royal Free Campus, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStromal vascular fraction (SVF) from adipose tissue is a rich and accessible source of regenerative cells, including adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs). SVF is most commonly isolated from lipoaspirate via enzymatic digestion, a process that is costly and considered 'more than minimal manipulation' by the United States Food and Drug Administration. In contrast, mechanically based isolation techniques have gained attention as a simpler, faster, and regulatory-compliant alternative, making them increasingly appealing for clinical applications. MAIN TEXT: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the outcomes of mechanical methods for harvesting SVF from human adipose tissue. Key parameters assessed included cell yield, viability, surface marker expression, and differentiation capacity. Additionally, split-sample studies were analysed descriptively to compare mechanical and enzymatic isolation approaches, thereby reducing variability in tissue source and preparation. A narrative synthesis was performed for all eligible studies (k = 22), and a single-arm meta-analysis of pooled outcomes of mechanical protocols was conducted for total cell yield and expression of CD34, CD73, and CD105 markers, depending on data availability. Mechanical isolation approaches varied considerably, but most high-performing protocols involved dedicated devices or systems. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled mean SVF cell yield of 11.96 × 10

conclusionMechanical SVF isolation methods can demonstrate comparable cell viability and differentiation potential and may outperform enzymatic protocols in terms of ADSC content and some functional properties (migration, immunomodulation). The main drawback of mechanical approaches is relatively lower total cell yield. The emergence of specialised devices for mechanical SVF isolation represents a key trend in the field. Continued efforts towards methodology and reporting standardisation are required to improve reproducibility and clinical reliability.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueCell SeparationStromal Vascular FractionCell DifferentiationHumansAdipose-derived stem cellsMechanical isolationMeta-analysisNon-enzymatic isolationRegenerative medicineStromal vascular fractionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41088425
PMCPMC12522944

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.