Cohen Steven R, Tiryaki Tunç, Womack Hayley A, Canikyan Serli, Schlaudraff Kai Uwe, Scheflan Michael
University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences, Kansas City, MO.
Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2019 Sep 29;1(4):ojz028. doi: 10.1093/asjof/ojz028. eCollection 2019 Dec.
Nanofat was introduced by Tonnard and Verpaele in 2013. Their initial observations in intradermal applications showed improvement in the appearance of the skin. Since then, a number of Nanofat devices have been introduced. The cellular content in the processing of Nanofat is not the same in every device, yet the cellular composition is responsible for the biologic action of Nanofat. The authors sought to find a different means to produce a matrix rich Nanofat to optimize the cellular content.
The primary objective of this study was to compare cell counts, cultures, and cell viabilities produced by LipocubeNano (Lipocube, Inc., London, UK) in comparison to Tulip's NanoTransfer (Tulip Medical, San Diego, CA) processing methods.
Twenty milliliters of fat were harvested from 10 patients in order to test two methods of Nanofat production. Ten milliliters of fat were used to assess each method and, after the final product was obtained, enzymatic digestion for stromal vascular fraction (SVF) isolation was performed. A Muse Flow-cytometer was used to measure cell counts and cell viabilities, cell cultures were performed, and cell images were taken with a florescent microscope.
The LipocubeNano was shown to be superior to Tulip's NanoTransfer system of progressive downsizing with final filtering, which appeared to trap more fibrous tissue leading to lower amounts of SVF. LipocubeNano resulted in higher cell counts (2.24 × 10/cc), whereas Tulip's NanoTransfer method resulted in a lower cell count at 1.44 × 10/cc. Cell viability was the same (96.05%) in both groups.
Nanofat from LipocubeNano has a higher regenerative cell count and more SVF cells than the other common mechanical method of Nanofat processing. This new means of mechanical processing preserves more matrix, optimizing the cellular content of the Nanofat, thus having potentially a higher regenerative effect.
纳米脂肪由托纳德（Tonnard）和韦尔帕勒（Verpaele）于2013年引入。他们最初对皮内应用的观察显示皮肤外观有所改善。从那时起，已经推出了许多纳米脂肪设备。在纳米脂肪处理过程中的细胞成分在每个设备中并不相同，但细胞组成决定了纳米脂肪的生物学作用。作者试图找到一种不同的方法来生产富含基质的纳米脂肪，以优化细胞成分。
本研究的主要目的是比较LipocubeNano（Lipocube公司，英国伦敦）与郁金香公司的NanoTransfer（郁金香医疗公司，加利福尼亚州圣地亚哥）处理方法所产生的细胞计数、培养情况和细胞活力。
从10名患者身上采集20毫升脂肪，以测试两种纳米脂肪生产方法。每种方法使用1毫升脂肪，在获得最终产品后，进行酶消化以分离基质血管成分（SVF）。使用Muse流式细胞仪测量细胞计数和细胞活力，进行细胞培养，并用荧光显微镜拍摄细胞图像。
结果显示，LipocubeNano优于郁金香公司的NanoTransfer系统，后者通过逐步缩小尺寸并最终过滤，似乎捕获了更多纤维组织，导致SVF数量减少。LipocubeNano产生的细胞计数更高（2.24×10⁶/立方厘米），而郁金香公司的NanoTransfer方法产生的细胞计数较低，为1.44×10⁶/立方厘米。两组的细胞活力相同（96.05%）。
与其他常见的纳米脂肪机械处理方法相比，LipocubeNano生产的纳米脂肪具有更高的再生细胞计数和更多的SVF细胞。这种新的机械处理方法保留了更多基质，优化了纳米脂肪的细胞成分，因此可能具有更高的再生效果。
