| droplet-based |
•
create identical templates
for spheroid formation |
• resulting empty droplets
(no cell containment) |
| |
•
single, double, and triple encapsulation variations |
• insufficient nutrient supply |
| electrowetting |
• easy automation and integration |
•
hard to design and fabricate these platforms |
| |
• rapid analysis |
|
| |
• pump and valve-free operation |
|
| microwell |
•
simple to operate |
• cell loss and spheroid disruption
during spheroid
collection |
| |
• controllable
spheroid size |
|
| microfluidic
hanging drop |
• self-assembly due to gravity |
• high flow rate used to collect formed spheroids can
damage spheroids |
| |
•
no cell adhesion observed on the surfaces |
• nonhomogeneous
number of cells in each hanging drop |
| microstructures |
• reversible process enabling formation and collection
of spheroids |
• applying high flow rate can affect
the spheroid formation
time and make cells escape |
| |
• efficient cell trapping due to high cellular interaction |
|
| acoustic |
• rapid
spheroid formation enabling high cell viability |
•
possible cell damage due to heating problems while
using high-frequency acoustic fields |
| |
• simple and versatile technology to fabricate complex
spheroids patterns in mild conditions |
• complex
fabrication processes while integrating acoustic
wave generators on chip level |
| dielectrophoresis |
• fast cell manipulation |
• possible
cell damage due to high electrical field |
| |
• stable cell positioning |
•
high conductivity of culture medium may result in
low cellular interactions and induce cell damage |
