Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Stem Cells International
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 9289213, 14 pages
Research Article

Evaluation of Three Devices for the Isolation of the Stromal Vascular Fraction from Adipose Tissue and for ASC Culture: A Comparative Study

1Banque de Tissus et Cellules, Laboratoire des Substituts Cutanés, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 5 Place d’Arsonval, Pavillon I, 69437 Lyon, France
2Lyon University, CarMeN Laboratory, INSERM U1060, 69008 Lyon, France
3Laboratoire de Biologie Tissulaire et Ingénierie Thérapeutique, UMR CNRS 5305, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
4Laboratory for Regenerative Technologies, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, 4123 Allschwil, Switzerland
5Laboratoire Central d’Anatomie Pathologique, Hôpital Édouard Herriot, Lyon, France
6Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Croix Rousse Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, University of Lyon, UCBL1, Lyon, France

Correspondence should be addressed to Jonathan Rodriguez

Received 19 July 2016; Accepted 13 December 2016; Published 22 February 2017

Academic Editor: Christian Dani

Copyright © 2017 Jonathan Rodriguez et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Adipose-derived stem/stromal cells (ASCs) reside in the stromal vascular fraction (SVF) of adipose tissue (AT) and can be easily isolated. However, extraction of the SVF from lipoaspirate is a critical step in generating ASC, and semiautomated devices have been developed to enhance the efficacy and reproducibility of the outcomes and to decrease manipulation and contamination. In this study, we compared the reference method used in our lab for SVF isolation from lipoaspirate, with three medical devices: GID SVF-1™, Puregraft™, and Stem.pras®. Cell yield and their viability were evaluated as well as their phenotype with flow cytometry. Further on, we determined their proliferative potential using population doublings (PD), PD time (PDT), and clonogenicity assay (CFU-F). Finally, we checked their genetic stability using RT-qPCR for TERT mRNA assay and karyotyping as well as their multilineage potential including adipogenic, chondrogenic, and osteogenic differentiation. Our results demonstrate that all the devices allow the production of SVF cells with consistent yield and viability, in less time than the reference method. Expanded cells from the four methods showed no significant differences in terms of phenotype, proliferation capabilities, differentiation abilities, and genetic stability.