Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 9;9:103. doi: 10.1186/s40634-022-00537-0

Table 3.

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

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

a Estimated total cell yield= Volume of product (ml) X Cell concentration (x106/ml of lipoaspirate) X % Cell viability

b Value given is an average obtained from the four different protocols used in the study

c Figures from Layer 2 which resulted in the highest numbers

d Enrichment performed in only 50% of lipoaspirate sample

e Generalised figure for the study overall, not specific to either device/system