Joris van Dongen

29 Comparison of SVF isolation procedures: a systematic review adipose stromal cell, adipose stem cell, stromal vascular fraction, autologous progenitor cell, or regenerative cell in combination with (I) cell separation, isolation, dissociation, digestion, emulsification, isolation system, cell concentrator and finally connected with (C) enzymatic, non-enzymatic, or mechanical. Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Clinical trials Case reports Comparative studies Case series Full text available Reviews All languages Letters to editor Human studies Non-comparative studies No full text available ≥2 different types of SVF isolation procedures Processing methods for fat grafting Protocols using centrifugation or RBC lysis buffer only 1 SVF isolation procedure compared with control group Intraoperative procedures Mesenchymal cells derived from other source than adipose tissue Blood saline fraction used instead of adipose fraction of the lipoaspirate Laboratory based enzyme protocols as experimental group No outcome of interest: SVF composition (CD markers), cell yield, viability of SVF Study selection and data collection process Two authors (JAD, AJT) selected studies independently based on the eligibility criteria. Inconsistencies were discussed during a consensus meeting. In case of disagreement, the senior author (MCH) gave a binding verdict. Data items Search term was partly based on a Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) framework. Outcomes of interest were not included in the search term. For this review the outcomes of interest were cell yield, viability of the nucleated cells, composition of the SVF and duration, cost and characteristics of the intraoperative isolation procedures. Effect sizes were calculated on cell yield and viability in studies with a comparison of intraoperative isolation procedures versus regular non- intraoperative isolation protocols. Differences in harvesting procedure were not taken into account.