Joris van Dongen

56 Chapter 2 that the reproducibility of the procedures as well as characterization of the SVF had shortcomings. If this is reached, further scientific research with proper controls with regard to the clinical effect and safety of SVF or ASCs are definitely wanted. CONCLUSION There is no evidence thus far that any intraoperative isolation procedure could be designated as preferred procedure for isolating SVF. However, three isolation procedures are rather processing techniques than isolation procedures. Enzymatic and non-enzymatic procedures had comparable results as it comes to cell yield, viability, and SVF composition. Non-enzymatic isolation procedures end products resulted had greater volumes (tSVF) than the pellets (cSVF) of the enzymatic isolation procedures. The results of intraoperative isolation procedures are comparable with those of the gold standard, the collagenase based non-intraoperative isolation protocol. Since intraoperative isolation procedures are less time-consuming, but as efficient as the non- intraoperative isolation protocol, the use of intraoperative isolation procedures seems to be more suitable for clinical purposes. However, only small sample sizes have been used to validate the isolation procedures. To test clinical safety, it is important to reach scientific validation of the commercially available procedures at an acceptable level. Regarding to this review, this level is not yet reached by many procedures. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We thank prof. dr. A. Vissink (Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen) for his contribution during the preparation of this manuscript.