Adipose Derived Stem Cells in Orthopaedics: History and Current Applications

Brian Johnson, Rajul Gupta, Bret Betz, Henry Kuechly^*, Sarah Kurkowski, Brian Grawe

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

---

Abstract

Context: Some studies have shown promising results with adipose-derived stem cell treatments for orthopaedic problems as a nonsurgical treatment option or an augmentation of surgical treatment.

Purpose: Review of the history and background, preparation methods, and current applications of adipose-derived stem cells in orthopedics. Provide critical appraisal of the available evidence for the use of Adipose Derived Stem Cells.

Results: Most of the studies utilizing adipose-derived stem cells are case series or meta-analyses with a small number of studies, therefore presenting a risk of selection bias. In cases of femoral head avascular necrosis and meniscal repair, no systematic review or meta-analysis has been published and available evidence is derived from smaller studies. Almost every review article concluded that large, multicenter, randomized control trials are needed to establish the value of adipose-derived stem cells in orthopaedics.

Conclusion: There is a need in orthopaedics for treatment modalities that increase biological healing potential for some pathologies and adipose derived stem cells represent a potential modality for such a purpose. However, there is a lack of high quality and robust evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this treatment modality in orthopaedic applications. The use of adipose derived stem cells in orthopaedics requires additional studies of higher quality before they can be considered an appropriate treatment option.

Strength of Recommendation: Level C for use of Adipose-derived stem cells in orthopaedics.

---

Introduction

Many common orthopaedic complaints related to musculoskeletal pathology often improve with various operative and non-operative treatment options. While some treatments provide many patients with relief of their symptoms, the fundamental lack of healing potential in tendinous, cartilaginous, and other connective tissues presents a challenge to orthopaedic clinicians in the treatment of some patients. Additionally, surgical treatment options for these pathologies may not be appropriate or possible for all patients for a variety of reasons. This challenge represents a present need in orthopaedics for additional treatment options that introduce added biology to the site of pathology that promotes the healing potential of the tissues. Stem cell therapy is a modality of interest in the treatment of orthopaedic problems, with adipose tissue being a source of mesenchymal stem cell isolation. In the present article, we review the history and background of adipose derived stem cells, isolation procedures, current applications in orthopaedics, and a current appraisal of the evidence for their use in the field of orthopaedics.

Methods

PubMed was used to search manually with varied search terms for peer-reviewed articles. The literature search ranged from January 1^st, 1978 to July 31^st, 2022. Articles related to the basic science, methods of preparation, and clinical application of adipose derived stem cells in orthopaedics were reviewed for inclusion in the narrative review and citations in those articles were reviewed for any relevant gaps in knowledge provided.

History

In 1978, adipocyte precursor cells were isolated and cultured for the first time from human and animal omental tissue. These precursors were obtained by culturing stromal vascular fraction (SVF) – a component of adipose tissue derived by collagenase digestion and centrifugation¹. While these cells were obtained from patients undergoing abdominal surgery, techniques to extract fatty tissues were developed to extract adipose tissue without extensive incisions, for the purpose of body contouring, in the plastic surgery arena and was termed lipoaspiration (LA)². In 2002, Zuk and colleagues demonstrated the processed lipoaspirate (PLA) contained a stem cell population which was immunophenotypically similar to bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs). These cells were demonstrated to differentiate into osteogenic, chondrogenic, myogenic and neurogenic lineages in presence of specific growth factors³.

Despite these findings, there was an underappreciation of adipose tissue as a source of stem cells⁴. Adipose tissue has been demonstrated to produce a much higher stem cell yield compared to bone marrow from the same donor⁵. BM-MSC comprise a relatively small number of cells obtained in bone marrow aspirate (BMA)⁶. Additionally, BM-MSC become senescent much earlier than Adipose Derived Stem Cells (ADSC)^7,8. The process of bone marrow aspiration is more painful for the patient compared to lipoaspiration, often requiring intravenous or spinal anesthesia, compared to tumescent anesthesia needed to extract appropriate quantities of lipoaspirate⁹. These factors, when combined, arguably make adipose tissue an optimal tissue source for stem cell harvesting.

Growth factor secretome and the biological properties of adipose stromal cells

In order to separate mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from the stromal vascular fraction, immunophenotyping using positive and negative selection has been used by various research groups. A recent systematic review found D90, CD44, CD29, CD105, CD13, CD34, CD73, CD166, CD10, CD49e and CD59 to be the most frequently reported positive markers and CD31, CD45, CD14, CD11b, CD34, CD19, CD56 and CD146 to be the most commonly reported negative markers¹⁰. Though this profile has significant overlap with BM-MSCs there are well defined surface markers to differentiate between the two, including CD106 and CD49d⁵. Flow cytometry is the most common laboratory method to verify and characterize MSCs. Experiments have elaborately described the growth factor secretome (the proteins secreted by biologic cells) of ADSCs¹¹. When cultured in hypoxic conditions or along with endothelial cells¹², the quantity of growth factors (VEGF, FGF, HGF) secreted by ADSCs increased 5-fold. This also correlated with increased perfusion in ischemic hindlimbs in animal studies^12,13. Other growth factors such as Nerve Growth Factor (NGF), IL-1, and IL-6, among others are secreted at higher levels by ADSCs as compared to BM-MSCs. Further, adipose derived stem cells are minimally immunogenic as demonstrated by a lack of T cell proliferation to allogeneic ADSCs as well as ASC-mediated suppression of lymphocyte reaction^14,15. Finally, there is substantial evidence of anti-inflammatory properties of stromal vascular fraction evidenced by suppression of pro-inflammatory Il-6 and TNF-a expression and higher levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-10 in fat transplant models^16,17.

Nomenclature

It is important at this point to clearly identify the different contents of adipose tissue with their relevance in regenerative medicine.

• Manipulated Lipoaspirate is a product of manipulation of lipoaspirate. This can be done by enzymatic methods, such as enzymatic digestion, or mechanical methods, such as ultrasonic cavitation¹⁸. Recently issued FDA guidelines make “more than minimally manipulated” lipoaspirate, defined as processing adipose tissue for use other than its role as a structural support tissue, subject to a new set of regulations¹⁹.
• Stromal vascular fraction (SVF) is a heterogenous cell mixture²⁰. While commonly derived from adipose tissue by manipulation of lipoaspirate, it can also be isolated from bone marrow²¹. Manipulation of lipoaspirate yields adipose derived-SVF(AD-SVF). This SVF is profoundly depleted in adipocytes but abundant in adipose stromal, hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), endothelial cells, fibroblasts, lymphocytes and macrophages, as well as a variety of growth factors.
• Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are spindle shaped cells which can be identified by plastic adherence and by presence of antigen Mab STRO-1 from many sources including bone marrow (BM), adipose tissue (AT), dental pulp, peripheral and cord blood and placental tissue^10,22. Stromal vascular fraction contains a wide variety of cells, connective tissue and blood vessels in addition to MSCs²³.
• ADSCs are defined as mesenchymal stem cells derived from adipose tissue. They are isolated by seeding SVF into culture, resulting in a population of elongated cells that adhere to the wall of the container, and further purified by standardized methods to deplete hematopoietic cells. This population is comprised of different types of cells but is much less heterogenous than SVF^23,24. This population is comprised of different types of cells but is much less heterogenous than SVF^23,24.

In vitro and in vivo differentiation capabilities of ADSCs

Since the seminal work in 2002, multiple research groups have advanced the findings and clinical applications of ADSCs with respect to their differentiation capabilities. Osteogenic differentiation in vitro can be induced by dexamethasone, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3³, carbon nanotubes and graphite surfaces²⁵. Inducible osteogenic differentiation was demonstrated in human critical size defects in bone using ADSC with beta-tricalcium phosphate²⁶. Other in vivo osteogenic growth factors include PGA scaffolds²⁷ and rhesus Bone Morphogenic Protein-2²⁸. Similarly, in vitro chondrogenic differentiation was induced by insulin, ascorbate, and TGF beta-1³. Since then, multiple naturally occurring (Silk scaffold)²⁹ and synthetic (magnetic iron nanoparticles)³⁰ materials have been shown to induce chondrogenic differentiation. In concordance with multiple in vitro³¹ and animal studies³², clinical studies demonstrated clinical improvement in knee osteoarthritis using PRP as a stimulator of cartilage healing by SVF^33,34. Finally, hydrocortisone has been used to induce myogenic differentiation of adipose stem cells in vitro, while multiple other mediums and growth factors have been used to induce myogenic differentiation in vivo³⁵. Multiple other tissue lineages have been derived from ADSC, further demonstrating the differentiation capabilities, but this discussion is focused on applications in orthopaedics and musculoskeletal medicine.

Stem cell yield from Bone Marrow versus Adipose tissue

It is important to differentiate the terms “cell yield” and “stem cell yield”. Not all plastic adherent cells from the stromal vascular fraction will express MSC surface markers. Hence, the term “cell yield” as compared to “stem cell yield” is preferable when comparing different counting methods immediately after SVF isolation, since around 5 – 10 percent of isolated cells demonstrate MSC markers on flow cytometry or form colonies after 14 days in culture³⁶. Stem cell yield from adipose tissue is 20 to 2000-fold higher than that from bone marrow.  It is noteworthy that excision of adipose tissue yields twice the number of stem cells from adipose tissue compared to lipoaspiration but carries with it inherently more risks to the patient⁸. Commercially available cell counters and light microscopy can be used to assess cell counts in SVF³⁶.

Methods of preparation

Lipo-aspiration

Lipo-aspiration can be done under intravenous or tumescent anesthesia⁹. Since SVF and ADSCs preparation require removal of a relatively small amount of subcutaneous fat, tumescent anesthesia is preferred unless the patient is also undergoing another reconstructive or reparative procedure requiring regional or general anesthesia⁹. Briefly, skin of the harvest site (typically, but not limited to, abdomen, groin, or thigh) is infiltrated with a mixture of 1:100 000 epinephrine and 0.9 percent sodium chloride solution by an infiltration canula of around 2.5 mm diameter and allowed to stand for 20 minutes. The volume of infiltrated solution is equal to the volume harvested. Use of a 5 mm blunt lipo-aspiration canula results in better SVF yield³⁷. Lower suction pressure around 30 KPa yields improved SVF cellularity³⁸. When the aspirate is allowed to stand for 10-30 minutes, supernatant separates from sedimented fat³⁹. This fat graft is used to isolate SVF by enzymatic or mechanical methods.

Enzymatic Methods

The methods used for enzymatic processing may follow a slight variation of the standard technique³⁹. Fat graft is washed with isotonic and iso-osmotic solution (Hank’s balanced salt, Ringer’s lactate, Phosphate-Buffered Saline) to remove erythrocytes and fat debris. The fat tissues are mixed with 0.075% to 0.1 % GMP grade collagenase for up to 2 hours for digestion^39,40. This is then centrifuged (at varying speed and duration), yielding 3 distinct layers. Fatty and aqueous layers are discarded to retain the pellet containing SVF. While enzymatic digestion is reported to yield a higher concentration of progenitor cells, it is more expensive, time consuming, and subject to variability of enzyme quality despite GMP certification⁴¹.

Mechanical Methods

Minor variations in technique aside, mechanical methods typically involve vibrating and centrifuging washed lipoaspirate⁴². While this method is cheaper and requires less processing time, it yields more blood cells and less ADSCs. Further, many collagen bonds remain intact^40,43. A novel mechanical method with stem cell yields equal to enzymatic method has been described by Amirkhani et al⁴¹. After Phosphate Buffered Saline wash, tissues are dissected in a blender-like device for a short time. This is followed by ultrasonic cavitation and centrifugation. Further processing includes isolation of the SVF pellet, suspension with ammonium chloride (to lyse RBCs) for 5 minutes and additional centrifugation. While the cell yield is optimal, osteogenic potential is potentially less compared to enzymatic digestion⁴².

Preparations

Although both enzymatic and mechanical methods of LA processing yield SVF, collagenase preparation falls outside what the USFDA defines as minimal manipulation. In contrast, the processes used to manufacture SVF that are usually intended for autologous use in the same-day surgical setting may fall within the FDA guidelines of minimal manipulation of human tissue^44,45. If one wishes to isolate and expand ADSC from SVF, as mentioned above, it requires some sort of cell expansion in culture media. Once expanded, frozen cells can be preserved for up to 2 weeks⁴⁵. A depiction of the two methods to isolate SVF and ADSC is provided in Figure 1. Administration at the target tissue is done in conjunction with carrier media such as autologous conditioned serum⁴⁵. Other scaffolds have been proposed for osteogenic⁴⁶, neurogenic^47,48 and tenogenic differentiation⁴⁹. These preparations of ADSC are also considered more than “minimally manipulated” by FDA guidelines due to the alteration of the original characteristics of adipose tissue relating to utility in tissue support and cushioning.

Figure 1: A depiction of enzymatic and mechanical methods of isolating stromal vascular fraction from adipose tissue. The above pathway, as labeled, represents the enzymatic method and the lower pathway represents mechanical methods, both yielding SVF and, subsequently, ADSC.

Current Applications of ADSCs in Orthopaedics

Rotator Cuff Disease

Though current treatments for rotator cuff disease have relatively good results, a persistently unmet need for introduction of favorable biology for healing remains for both partial and full thickness tears. Some studies have aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of introducing ADSCs at the site of rotator cuff disease both in operative and nonoperative management. In 2017, Kim et al. demonstrated a lower retear rate in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair with no difference in functional outcomes at two-year follow-up⁵⁰. Though a small study, a randomized controlled trial showed improved shoulder function and pain relief after ADSC injection for management of partial thickness tears without adverse events⁵¹. Another small RCT in 2020 demonstrated a safety profile similar to that of corticosteroid injections with improved functional outcome scores after treatment of partial thickness tears with ADSC injection⁵². A recent RCT evaluating augmentation of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with ADSCs showed a reassuring safety profile, however any additional benefit in functional outcome scores were only seen in short term follow-up⁵³.

Meniscal Disease

Literature related to treatment of meniscus pathology and augmentation of meniscus repair with ADSCs is sparse. One small case series showed two patients with repaired degenerative meniscus tears after intraarticular knee injection of ADSCs for primary osteoarthritis when viewed directly with arthroscopy⁵⁴. A single patient report in 2014 showed apparently healed meniscus tear on MRI after injection of ADSCs, however this formulation included PRP and other ingredients and does not represent injection with pure ADSCs⁵⁵.

Knee Osteoarthritis

Cartilage degeneration in osteoarthritis of the knee represents a significant need for improvements in biologically active therapies that directly promote and provide the necessary materials for regeneration of articular cartilage.  Nonoperative treatments that are commonly used or are being used more frequently include injections with corticosteroids, platelet rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, bone marrow aspirate and ADSCs. The latter four treatment options involve a theoretical benefit of improved healing and regeneration of cartilage. In 2015, a systematic review of preclinical animal models for ADSC injection for knee OA demonstrated positive results with respect to delaying progression of OA with some evidence of improvement of cartilage features and regeneration⁵⁶. In 2017, Coughlin et al. published a stepwise technical approach to ADSC harvesting and intraarticular knee injections as a single procedure⁵⁷. Koh et al. published a randomized control trial in 2012 demonstrating short term benefits to functional outcomes scores compared to controls and a case-control trial in 2013 demonstrating improved pain and functional scoring, as well as improved MRI findings as 2 years^33,58, however these results are confounded by the inclusion of PRP in the ADSC injections. Lopa et al. reported in a 2019 review that though studies reported improvement of knee pain and function from ADSC treatment, most were small studies that did not compare to controls⁵⁹. A 2019 RCT from Lu et al. showed improved cartilage volume as measured on MRI when compared to patients receiving hyaluronic acid injection⁶⁰. Meta analyses from Anil et al. and Bolia et al. in 2021 and 2022, respectively, showed treatment with SVF from adipose tissue improved pain and functional outcomes at least in the short term but both concluded that presently available trials have significant variation in preparation techniques and study design^61,62.

Achilles Tendinopathy

Two randomized controlled trials have demonstrated injection of ADSC for Achilles tendinopathy improved functional outcomes sooner than treatment with PRP injections with similar outcomes at each study’s endpoint^63,64. However, it is important to highlight that even the efficacy of treatment with PRP for Achilles tendon pathology is controversial^65,66.

Critical Appraisal and Current State of Acceptance

In the current regulatory environment, it is not difficult for the preparations of autologous cell therapies to fall outside FDA regulation. In general, “stem cell therapy” has received positive and optimistic coverage in the media. Concerns have been raised about the impact of stem cell research on the public by scientific societies, the research community, and regulatory authorities⁶⁷. The scientific enthusiasm surrounding these treatment modalities has given rise to some unproven therapies which are often expensive^44,68,69. The number of stem cell clinics has grown five-fold in the last 5 years. More than 80 percent of these treat pain-related conditions and nearly half of them have their focus on orthopaedic conditions. While cells derived from bone marrow remain the most popular, the proportion of clinics using ADSC has increased⁴⁴. These clinics use patented processes that are significantly different from each other. Apart from orthopaedic conditions, stem cell treatment is being offered for many neurological conditions such as stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia. Recently, due to the wide variety of conditions in which stem cell treatments are used, many clinicians have expressed skepticism about therapeutic effects.

Patients often desire to avoid surgery for degenerative conditions and some researchers have contacted stem cell clinics simulating patients seeking injection. In such a scenario, direct to patient advertising of “non-surgical treatment” often has a strong impact on the target population and patients then seek treatment in “stem cell clinics”⁶⁹. Such patients are often first seen by practitioners who are rarely qualified orthopaedic physicians. To circumvent strict FDA guidelines in the US, clinics sometimes transport lipoaspirate across the border into Mexico, where ADSC are isolated and cultured. Patients are then administered injections across the border in Mexico. There has been a report of multi-articular septic arthritis resulting from contamination during the obviously complex transportation procedure⁷⁰. The culture media used for ADSC culture may harbor pathogenic micro-organisms, which sometimes contaminate the final product. Fungal pathogens such as candida, aspergillus, and penicillium often contaminate stem cell cultures⁷¹. Even when minimally manipulated preparations are injected, some clinics mix a variety of adjuvants, potentially increasing the possibility of contamination and subsequent deep infections, as well as complicating any anecdotal conclusions made about treatment efficacy⁷². Fortunately, serious complications with nonexpanded and mechanically expanded SVF preparations have been rare.  These complications mainly originate from the injection procedure rather than injectate. There are case reports of skin organisms causing septic arthritis and spondylodiscitis after “biologic” injections^70,73.

Most of the studies utilizing ADSCs or SVF are case series. Meta-analyses have been done to evaluate the effectiveness of adipose tissue preparations in knee arthritis^61,62 and rotator cuff repair⁷⁴. Since these meta-analyses included a relatively small number of studies, there is a risk of selection bias. In cases of femoral head AVN and meniscal repair, no systematic review or meta-analysis has been published and available evidence is derived from smaller studies. Almost every review article concluded that large, multicenter, randomized control trials are needed to establish the value of ADSC in orthopaedics. Frequent use of adjuvants like PRP further adds to the heterogeneity of these studies.

The relative lack of such evidence in the literature for many applications in orthopaedics demonstrates the need for conducting larger studies of higher quality to more definitively and effectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of this treatment modality in orthopaedic applications.

Conclusion

Regenerative medicine techniques have increased in popularity over the years. There is a need in orthopaedics for treatment modalities that increase biological healing potential for some pathologies. Adipose derived stem cells represent a potential modality for such a purpose with their ease of collection and favorable secretome profile. However, the evidence for the use of adipose derived stem cells in orthopaedics requires conducting of additional studies of higher quality before they can be considered an appropriate treatment option.

Acknowledgements

The authors have no financial disclosures.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

References

1. Van RL, Roncari DA. Complete differentiation of adipocyte precursors. A culture system for studying the cellular nature of adipose tissue. Cell and Tissue Research. 1978; 195(2): 317-29.
2. Illouz YG. Body contouring by lipolysis: a 5-year experience with over 3000 cases. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1983; 72(5): 591-7.
3. Zuk PA, Zhu M, Ashjian P, et al. Human Adipose Tissue Is a Source of Multipotent Stem Cells. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2002; 13(12): 4279-95.
4. Fraser JK, Wulur I, Alfonso Z, et al. Fat tissue: an underappreciated source of stem cells for biotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology. 2006; 24(4): 150-4.
5. Gimble JM, Grayson W, Guilak F, et al. Adipose tissue as a stem cell source for musculoskeletal regeneration. Frontiers in bioscience (Scholar edition). 2011; 3(1): 69-81.
6. Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC, et al. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science (New York, NY). 1999; 284(5411): 143-7.
7. Dmitrieva RI, Minullina IR, Bilibina AA, et al. Bone marrow- and subcutaneous adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells: differences and similarities. Cell Cycle (Georgetown, Tex). 2012; 11(2): 377-83.
8. De Ugarte DA, Morizono K, Elbarbary A, et al. Comparison of multi-lineage cells from human adipose tissue and bone marrow. Cells, Tissues, Organs. 2003; 174(3): 101-9.
9. Sood J, Jayaraman L, Sethi N. Liposuction: Anaesthesia challenges. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2011; 55(3): 220-7.
10. Mildmay-White A, Khan W. Cell Surface Markers on Adipose-Derived Stem Cells: A Systematic Review. Current Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2017; 12(6): 484-92.
11. Chenau J, Michelland S, Seve M. [Secretome: definitions and biomedical interest]. La Revue De Medecine Interne. 2008; 29(7): 606-8.
12. Nakagami H, Maeda K, Morishita R, et al. Novel autologous cell therapy in ischemic limb disease through growth factor secretion by cultured adipose tissue-derived stromal cells. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2005; 25(12): 2542-7.
13. Rehman J, Traktuev D, Li J, et al. Secretion of angiogenic and antiapoptotic factors by human adipose stromal cells. Circulation. 2004; 109(10): 1292-8.
14. Niemeyer P, Kornacker M, Mehlhorn A, et al. Comparison of immunological properties of bone marrow stromal cells and adipose tissue-derived stem cells before and after osteogenic differentiation in vitro. Tissue Engineering. 2007; 13(1): 111-21.
15. McIntosh KR, Lopez MJ, Borneman JN, et al. Immunogenicity of allogeneic adipose-derived stem cells in a rat spinal fusion model. Tissue Eng Part A. 2009; 15(9): 2677-86.
16. Zhu M, Xue J, Lu S, et al. Anti-inflammatory effect of stromal vascular fraction cells in fat transplantation. Exp Ther Med. 2019; 17(2): 1435-9.
17. Zhou L, Yang T, Zhao F, et al. Effect of uncultured adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction on preventing urethral stricture formation in rats. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1): 3573.
18. Matsumoto D, Sato K, Gonda K, et al. Cell-assisted lipotransfer: supportive use of human adipose-derived cells for soft tissue augmentation with lipoinjection. Tissue Engineering. 2006; 12(12): 3375-82.
19. Health USDo, Human S, Food & Drug A. Human cells, tissues, and cellular-and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) from adipose tissue: regulatory considerations; draft guidance. 2016.
20. Nguyen A, Guo J, Banyard DA, et al. Stromal vascular fraction: A regenerative reality? Part 1: Current concepts and review of the literature. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2016; 69(2): 170-9.
21. Sullivan MO, Gordon-Evans WJ, Fredericks LP, et al. Comparison of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Surface Markers from Bone Marrow Aspirates and Adipose Stromal Vascular Fraction Sites. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2016.
22. Kern S, Eichler H, Stoeve J, et al. Comparative analysis of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, or adipose tissue. Stem Cells (Dayton, Ohio). 2006; 24(5): 1294-301.
23. Bourin P, Bunnell BA, Casteilla L, et al. Stromal cells from the adipose tissue-derived stromal vascular fraction and culture expanded adipose tissue-derived stromal/stem cells: a joint statement of the International Federation for Adipose Therapeutics (IFATS) and Science and the International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT). Cytotherapy. 2013; 15(6): 641-8.
24. Copcu HE, Oztan S. Not Stromal Vascular Fraction (SVF) or Nanofat, but Total Stromal-Cells (TOST): A New Definition. Systemic Review of Mechanical Stromal-Cell Extraction Techniques. Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. 2020; 18(1): 25-36.
25. Li X, Liu H, Niu X, et al. The use of carbon nanotubes to induce osteogenic differentiation of human adipose-derived MSCs in vitro and ectopic bone formation in vivo. Biomaterials. 2012; 33(19): 4818-27.
26. Thesleff T, Lehtimäki K, Niskakangas T, et al. Cranioplasty with adipose-derived stem cells and biomaterial: a novel method for cranial reconstruction. Neurosurgery. 2011; 68(6): 1535-40.
27. Yoon E, Dhar S, Chun DE, et al. In vivo osteogenic potential of human adipose-derived stem cells/poly lactide-co-glycolic acid constructs for bone regeneration in a rat critical-sized calvarial defect model. Tissue Engineering. 2007; 13(3): 619-27.
28. Mehrkens A, Saxer F, Güven S, et al. Intraoperative engineering of osteogenic grafts combining freshly harvested, human adipose-derived cells and physiological doses of bone morphogenetic protein-2. European Cells & Materials. 2012; 24: 308-19.
29. Kim HJ, Park S-H, Durham J, et al. In vitro chondrogenic differentiation of human adipose-derived stem cells with silk scaffolds. Journal of Tissue Engineering. 2012; 3(1): 2041731412466405.
30. Labusca L, Herea D-D, Emanuela Minuti A, et al. Magnetic Nanoparticles and Magnetic Field Exposure Enhances Chondrogenesis of Human Adipose Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells But Not of Wharton Jelly Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2021.
31. Van Pham P, Bui KH-T, Ngo DQ, et al. Activated platelet-rich plasma improves adipose-derived stem cell transplantation efficiency in injured articular cartilage. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2013; 4(4): 91.
32. Yang W-T, Ke C-Y, Yeh K-T, et al. Stromal-vascular fraction and adipose-derived stem cell therapies improve cartilage regeneration in osteoarthritis-induced rats. Scientific Reports. 2022; 12(1): 1-11.
33. Koh Y-G, Choi Y-J. Infrapatellar fat pad-derived mesenchymal stem cell therapy for knee osteoarthritis. The Knee. 2012; 19(6): 902-7.
34. Buckwalter JA, Mankin HJ, Grodzinsky AJ. Articular cartilage and osteoarthritis. Instructional Course Lectures. 2005; 54: 465-80.
35. Forcales SV. Potential of adipose-derived stem cells in muscular regenerative therapies. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015; 7: 123.
36. Prantl L, Eigenberger A, Brix E, et al. Adipose Tissue-Derived Stem Cell Yield Depends on Isolation Protocol and Cell Counting Method. Cells. 2021; 10(5).
37. Becker H, Vazquez OA, Rosen T. Cannula Size Effect on Stromal Vascular Fraction Content of Fat Grafts. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open. 2021; 9(3): e3471.
38. Chen Y-W, Wang J-R, Liao X, et al. Effect of suction pressures on cell yield and functionality of the adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2017; 70(2): 257-66.
39. Aronowitz JA, Lockhart RA, Hakakian CS. Mechanical versus enzymatic isolation of stromal vascular fraction cells from adipose tissue. SpringerPlus. 2015; 4: 713.
40. Iyyanki T, Hubenak J, Liu J, et al. Harvesting Technique Affects Adipose-Derived Stem Cell Yield. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2015; 35(4): 467-76.
41. Amirkhani MA, Mohseni R, Soleimani M, et al. A rapid sonication based method for preparation of stromal vascular fraction and mesenchymal stem cells from fat tissue. BioImpacts: BI. 2016; 6(2): 99-104.
42. Raposio E, Caruana G, Bonomini S, et al. A novel and effective strategy for the isolation of adipose-derived stem cells: minimally manipulated adipose-derived stem cells for more rapid and safe stem cell therapy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2014; 133(6): 1406-9.
43. Markarian CF, Frey GZ, Silveira MD, et al. Isolation of adipose-derived stem cells: a comparison among different methods. Biotechnology Letters. 2014; 36(4): 693-702.
44. Turner LG. Federal Regulatory Oversight of US Clinics Marketing Adipose-Derived Autologous Stem Cell Interventions: Insights From 3 New FDA Draft Guidance Documents. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2015; 90(5): 567-71.
45. Bunnell BA. Adipose Tissue-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Cells. 2021; 10(12).
46. Yoshida Y, Matsubara H, Fang X, et al. Adipose-derived stem cell sheets accelerate bone healing in rat femoral defects. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(3).
47. Gao S, Zhao P, Lin C, et al. Differentiation of Human Adipose-Derived Stem Cells into Neuron-Like Cells Which Are Compatible with Photocurable Three-Dimensional Scaffolds. Tissue Engineering Part A. 2014; 20(7-8): 1271-84.
48. Zhou J, Cheng L, Sun X, et al. Neurogenic differentiation of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells on aligned electrospun polypyrrole/polylactide composite nanofibers with electrical stimulation. Frontiers of Materials Science. 2016; 10(3): 260-9.
49. Norelli JB, Plaza DP, Stal DN, et al. Tenogenically differentiated adipose-derived stem cells are effective in Achilles tendon repair in vivo. Journal of Tissue Engineering. 2018.
50. Kim YS, Sung CH, Chung SH, et al. Does an Injection of Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Loaded in Fibrin Glue Influence Rotator Cuff Repair Outcomes? A Clinical and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017; 45(9): 2010-8.
51. Jo CH, Chai JW, Jeong EC, et al. Intratendinous Injection of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease: A 2-Year Follow-Up Study. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery: Official Publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association. 2020; 36(4): 971-80.
52. Hurd JL, Facile TR, Weiss J, et al. Safety and efficacy of treating symptomatic, partial-thickness rotator cuff tears with fresh, uncultured, unmodified, autologous adipose-derived regenerative cells (UA-ADRCs) isolated at the point of care: a prospective, randomized, controlled first-in-human pilot study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2020; 15(1): 122.
53. Randelli PS, Cucchi D, Fossati C, et al. Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Augmentation With Autologous Microfragmented Lipoaspirate Tissue Is Safe and Effectively Improves Short-term Clinical and Functional Results: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial With 24-Month Follow-up. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022; 50(5): 1344-57.
54. Onoi Y, Hiranaka T, Nishida R, et al. Second-look arthroscopic findings of cartilage and meniscus repair after injection of adipose-derived regenerative cells in knee osteoarthrits: Report of two cases. Regenerative Therapy. 2019; 11: 212-6.
55. Pak J, Lee JH, Lee SH. Regenerative repair of damaged meniscus with autologous adipose tissue-derived stem cells. BioMed Research International. 2014; 2014: 436029.
56. Perdisa F, Gostyńska N, Roffi A, et al. Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Treatment of Articular Cartilage: A Systematic Review on Preclinical and Clinical Evidence. Stem Cells International. 2015; 2015: 597652.
57. Coughlin RP, Oldweiler A, Mickelson DT, et al. Adipose-Derived Stem Cell Transplant Technique for Degenerative Joint Disease. Arthroscopy Techniques. 2017; 6(5): e1761-e6.
58. Koh Y-G, Jo S-B, Kwon O-R, et al. Mesenchymal Stem Cell Injections Improve Symptoms of Knee Osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2013; 29(4): 748-55.
59. Lopa S, Colombini A, Moretti M, et al. Injective mesenchymal stem cell-based treatments for knee osteoarthritis: from mechanisms of action to current clinical evidences. Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy: official journal of the ESSKA. 2019; 27(6): 2003-20.
60. Lu L, Dai C, Zhang Z, et al. Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with intra-articular injection of autologous adipose-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase IIb clinical trial. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2019; 10(1): 143.
61. Anil U, Markus DH, Hurley ET, et al. The efficacy of intra-articular injections in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The Knee. 2021; 32: 173-82.
62. Bolia IK, Bougioukli S, Hill WJ, et al. Clinical Efficacy of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Versus Stromal Vascular Fraction Injection in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022; 50(5): 1451-61.
63. de Girolamo L, Grassi M, Viganò M, et al. Treatment of Achilles Tendinopathy with Autologous Adipose-derived Stromal Vascular Fraction: Results of a Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016; 4(7_suppl4): 2325967116S00128.
64. Usuelli FG, D'Ambrosi R, Maccario C, et al. Adipose-derived stem cells in orthopaedic pathologies. British Medical Bulletin. 2017; 124(1): 31-54.
65. Madhi MI, Yausep OE, Khamdan K, et al. The use of PRP in treatment of Achilles Tendinopathy: A systematic review of literature. Study design: Systematic review of literature. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020; 55: 320-6.
66. Boesen AP, Boesen MI, Hansen R, et al. Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Nonsurgically Treated Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures: A Randomized, Double-Blinded Prospective Study. Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48(9): 2268-76.
67. Caulfield T, Sipp D, Murry CE, et al. Scientific Community. Confronting stem cell hype. Science (New York, NY). 2016; 352(6287): 776-7.
68. Taliaferro J, Shapiro SA, Montero DP, et al. Cash-Based Stem-Cell Clinics: The Modern Day Snake Oil Salesman? A Report of Two Cases of Patients Harmed by Intra-articular Stem Cell Injections. JBJS case connector. 2019; 9(4): e0363.
69. Piuzzi NS, Ng M, Chughtai M, et al. The Stem-Cell Market for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Patient Perspective. J Knee Surg. 2018; 31(06): 551-6.
70. Fleming Iii JF, Navarro RA. Multi-Articular Septic Arthritis Following Intrarticular Adipocyte Injection: A Case Report. Ann Clin Case Rep. 2016; 1.1196.
71. Doyle A, Griffiths JB. Cell and Tissue Culture: Laboratory Procedure in Biotechnology, 1st. EdJohnWileyandSonsInc, Chichester, UK. 1998.
72. Eliasberg CD, Nemirov DA, Mandelbaum BR, et al. Complications Following Biologic Therapeutic Injections: A Multicenter Case Series. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2021; 37(8): 2600-5.
73. Ramos O, Speirs JN, Danisa O. Lumbar Discitis and Osteomyelitis After a Spinal Stem Cell Injection?: A Case Report and Literature Review. JBJS Case Connector. 2020; 10(3): e19.00636.
74. Muthu S, Mogulesh C, Viswanathan VK, et al. Is cellular therapy beneficial in management of rotator cuff tears? Meta-analysis of comparative clinical studies. World Journal of Meta-Analysis. 2022; 10(3): 162-76.