Comparison of Harvesting and Processing Technique for Adipose Tissue Graft: Evaluation of Cell Viability

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Good

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.

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Very Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

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.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: Except the following errors have been detected:

1.     The 1^st 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 2^nd 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 8^th 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.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team