ArticleStem cell research & therapy2026
Clarifying the critical differences between the enzymatic stromal vascular fraction and the mechanically derived stromal vascular tissue or nanofat for spinal cord injury applications.
Article in Stem cell research & therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Host immune determinants of stromal vascular fraction graft survival: Toward a concept of SVF therapy resistance - A systematic narrative review.Cell transplantationPooled it
- From elective protocols to emergency reality: rethinking adipose tissue harvesting for stromal vascular fraction applications.Stem cells translational medicine · 2026Review
- Intramedullary mesenchymal stromal cell transplantation in humans: Procedural safety and oncological risk reassessment.Cell transplantationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This letter aims to address the increasing confusion surrounding the concepts and terminology of enzymatically derived stromal vascular fraction (eSVF) and mechanically processed adipose tissue, which is often referred to as stromal vascular tissue (mSVT) or nanofat. Although these products are often presented as equivalent, they differ fundamentally in their biological composition, processing methods and regulatory classification. Enzymatic digestion yields a homogeneous, adipocyte-free cellular suspension, whereas mechanical processing preserves adipocytes, extracellular matrix fragments and tissue architecture. In the context of spinal cord injury, these differences give rise to biologically plausible concerns and procedural constraints, particularly with regard to intramedullary delivery. This work highlights the importance of precise terminology, transparent reporting of methods, and careful regulatory alignment to ensure the safe and scientifically sound translation of clinical applications.
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.