Joris van Dongen

43 Comparison of SVF isolation procedures: a systematic review Table5B. Cell yield permilliliter of endvolume, viability and concentration of concentration procedures. Non-enzymatic isolation procedure Cell yield x10 5 cells/ml SD Viability nucleated cells (%) SD Start volume End volume End as % of start volume Y:C ratio* FAST (Domenis, 2015) 4,6 2,9 - - - - - - FAT (van Dongen, 2016) 22,6 4,5 - - 10 1 10% 2.3 FEF (Mashiko, 2016) 1,8 a 0,5 a 39% 9 - - 10% 0.2 NANO (Tonnard, 2013) - b - - - 100 - - - REF (Mashiko, 2016) 6,5 a 0,8 a 91% 3 - - 39% 2.5 SF (Mashiko, 2016) 8,0 a 0,4 a 90% 5 - - 48% 3.8 SHUF5 (Osinga, 2015) 13 65% - 10 - - - SHUF30 (Osinga, 2015) 11 63% - 10 - - - STCELL (Millan, 2015) a 18,8 4,7 87% - 100 15 15% 2.8 * Y:C ratio: Yield: Concentration ratio; relative cell yield per processed lipoaspirate volume. a No exact data mentioned in text, data extracted from figures by authors JAD and AJT. b Cell yield 2*10^6 cells per 100 ml of processed fat by the Nanofat procedure. No cell yield per ml end product can be calculated. FAST Fastem Corios (Corios); FAT Fat procedure; FEF Filtrated fluid of emulsified fat; NANO Nanofat procedure; REF Residual tissue of emulsified fat; SF Squeezed fat; SHUF5 Shuffling 5 times; SHUF30 Shuffling 30 times; STCELL StromaCell Table 6A. Effect sizes of studies evaluating enzymatic intraoperative isolation procedures regarding cell yield. Study Enzymatic isolation procedure Non-intraoperative isolation protocol Effect size N Cell yield x10^5 cells SD N Cell yield x10^5 cells SD AIS, SundarRaj, 2015 11 1.17 0.5 11 1.15 0.30 0,07 CYT, Domenis, 2015 9 11.7 5.0 16 6.7 3.30 1,52 CYT, Lin, 2008 6 3.7 0.9 3 4.96 0.72 -1,75 LIPOK, Domenis, 2015 9 5.0 3.0 16 6.7 3.30 -0,52 SEPAX, Güven, 2012 6 2.6 1.2 6 1.6 0.90 1,11 TGCIS, Doi, 2012 6 7.0 1.9 6 7.0 2.43 0,00 AIS Automated Isolation System; CYT Celution System Enzymatic (Cytori); LIPOK Lipokit System (Medi- khan); SEPAX Sepax (Biosafe); TGCIS Tissue Genesis Cell Isolation System (Tissue Genesis)