Comparison of Harvesting and Processing Technique for Adipose Tissue Graft: Evaluation of Cell Viability
Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for
Abstract & Keywords
Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?
A: Very Good
Comments: Since the Abstract was exceeding the word limit (according to the guidelines) it had to be trimmed.
Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?
A: Very Good
Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?
Tools and Methods
Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?
Discussion & Conclusion
Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?
Comments: The study establishes that adipose tissue harvested using the three types of cannulas and standard liposuction technique followed by gold-standard enzymatic digestion was vital and contained metabolically active cells. It highlights that the cannula did not affect the cell viability of the tissue. The study establishes that the minimally invasive technique and minimal manipulation of the adipose tissue could yield a tissue with a good number of viable cells. This study concludes that micro fragmented adipose tissue is a promising source for regenerative treatments.
Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?
Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?
Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?
Figures & Tables
Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?
Q: Is it clear and understandable?
Comments: Except the following errors have been detected:
1. The 1st sentence under the subheading Conclusion under Abstract was not framed properly and should be changed to “This study proved… cells compared to adipose tissue harvested with a liposuction system and processed with enzymatic digestion (collagenase).”
2. The 2nd sentence under the subheading Conclusion under Abstract was not framed properly and should be changed to “This study confirms that the minimally invasive technique and minimal manipulation…. cells.”
3. The 8th sentence under Introduction was not framed properly and should be changed to “Thanks to…improve skin trophism, accelerate the closure of complex wounds or ulcers, and enhancement of skin appearance after damage from radiotherapy.”
Further comments on the paper
Comments: The study aims at comparing harvesting and processing techniques for adipose tissue graft. The study was performed on adipose tissues harvested from 7 patients (6 females and 1 male) with an average age of 48.5 years with 3 different techniques and the cell vitality of every sample was compared immediately after plating (T0) and after 72 hours (T72). It investigated the control of cell viability of adipose tissue (AT) harvested using the two types of cannulas having 0.8 mm and 1 mm side port holes. The results were compared with tissue harvested with a standard liposuction technique and processed with a standard procedure consisting of enzymatic digestion. Guided harvested adipose tissue with small cannulas with small side port holes yields a comparable number of viable cells compared to adipose tissue harvested with a liposuction system and processed with enzymatic digestion. This study established that it is possible to obtain a good potential regenerative tissue with a good number of viable cells with a minimally invasive guided harvesting procedure even without any substantial manipulation. Future studies are needed to further establish and support the findings of this study.
Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?
A: Yes - Suitable to be published
If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.
Science Repository Team
This email is restricted to the intended user.
|Science Repository - Support|
Corresponding AuthorAlessandro Gennai
Plastic Surgeon, Private Practice, Studio Gennai, Bologna, Italy
Article TypeResearch Article
Publication historyReceived: Fri 12, Nov 2021
Accepted: Fri 03, Dec 2021
Published: Mon 20, Dec 2021
Copyright© 2023 Alessandro Gennai. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.