Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of the mechanical devices/systems used in each study, their uncultured cell concentrations, viability (where applicable) and analytical techniques used

From: The composition of cell-based therapies obtained from point-of-care devices/systems which mechanically dissociate lipoaspirate: a scoping review of the literature

Device/ System used (Author)

Adipose donor site

Harvest technique and manipulation of lipoaspirate prior to insertion in device/ system

Volume processed (ml)

Cell Concentration (x106/ml of lipoaspirate)

Cell Viability (%)

Estimated total cell yield of product (x106)a

Laboratory analysis used to quantify cell numbers (after device/system processing)

Final volume of product (ml)

Enzyme use

Centrifugation

Filtration

Washing

Other Mechanical

Culture medium/ FBS/ Antibiotic

Counting Device

Adinizer (Copcu et al. [18])

Abdomen

Harvested with 2.8mm diameter cannula with tumescent solution and adrenaline. Predilution with saline in 50% of samples tested

5-20

1.22b

92.75b

1.13- 13.6 (Depending on volume used)

 

Y

    

LunaStem device

1-12 (Variable)

Adiprep (Dragoo et al. [27])

Knee fat pad

Harvested during arthroscopy into AquaVage system. Then subjected to fractionisation and syringe emulsification.

30

0.486c

69.03c

0.99 (Mean)

Y

Y

 

Y

 

Y

Haemocytometer

~2.95 (Mean)

Fastem (Domenis et al. [24])

Abdomen, hips and trochanter region

Harvesting procedure not mentioned. ‘Standardised procedural protocol’ not described.

No data

0.444 to 1d

-

N/A

Y

Y

Y

   

No data

Fastem and MyStem (Gentile et al. [29])

No data

Harvesting procedure not mentioned.

80

0.03 and 0.005

98e

0.29 and 0.049

 

Y

Y

  

Y

Haemocytometer

10

Hy-Tissue SVF (Busato et al. [12])

Abdomen

Harvested with 11G cannula with Klein tumescence solution, followed by decantation

25-30

0.041

-

N/A

 

Y

   

Y

CytoSMART counter

No data

Lipocube Nano & Tulip Nanotransfer (Cohen et al. [17])

No data

Harvested with 2.4mm diameter cannula and then cleaned with Ringer’s lactate, sedimented and decanted.

10

2.24 and 1.44

96.05

N/A

Y

Y

  

Y

 

Muse Flow Cytometer

No data (‘Pellet’ used)

Lipocube SVF (Tiryaki et al. [66])

Hip

Harvested with 3.5mm diameter cannula then decanted.

20

0.94

97.55

N/A

    

Y

Y

MuseCell Analyzer

No data (‘Pellet’ used)

Lipogems (Vezzani et al. [75])

Abdomen

Harvested with 17G cannula either manually or vacuum assisted and mixed with saline

60

0.027

-

N/A

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

Y

Haemocytometer

20-30

Lull pgm (Morselli et al. [42])

Abdomen

Harvesting procedure not mentioned. ‘Negative pressure’- not clarified.

30

2.4

-

N/A

Y

Y

Y

 

Y

Y

Cell Coulter counter

10

MyStem (Cicione et al. [16])

No data

Harvested with MyStem 1.8mm blunt- tip cannula. Process not reported.

17-50

0.6

75.87

3.6- 10.7 (Depending on introduced volume)

 

Y

    

NucleoCounter

8-23.5 (Variable)

MyStem (Tarallo et al. [65])

Abdomen

Harvested with local anaesthetic. ‘Standard protocol’- not described

30

0.83

74.3

0.62- 4.3

Y

Y

   

Y

NucleoCounter

1-7 (Variable)

Puregraft (Streit et al. [63])

Abdomen

Harvested with 3.5mm diameter cannula with tumescent solution.

50

0.198

60

N/A

Y

Y

 

Y

 

Y

Haemocytometer

No data (Pellet used)

Rigenera (Dai Pre et al. [20])

Thigh and Abdomen

Harvesting procedure not mentioned. Lipoaspirate mixed with equal volume of culture medium, FBS and antibiotics.

4

21

-

N/A

 

Y

Y

  

Y

Tryptan blue exclusion assay

4

Transpose RT (Winnier et al. [77])

No data

Harvested with ‘standard procedure’- not described. Lipoaspirate mixed with lactated Ringer solution

25

0.084

61.7

0.16

      

NucleoCounter

3

Tulip Nanotransfer (Sese et al. [61])

Abdomen

Harvested with Carraway Harvester cannula with tumescent fluid, then washed with saline.

20

6.63

76.8

50.9

 

Y

   

Y

NucleoCounter

10

  1. a Estimated total cell yield= Volume of product (ml) X Cell concentration (x106/ml of lipoaspirate) X % Cell viability
  2. b Value given is an average obtained from the four different protocols used in the study
  3. c Figures from Layer 2 which resulted in the highest numbers
  4. d Enrichment performed in only 50% of lipoaspirate sample
  5. e Generalised figure for the study overall, not specific to either device/system