Manual vs automated delivery of cells for transplantation: accuracy, reproducibility, and impact on viability.
BACKGROUND
Cellular transplantation holds promise for the management of a variety of neurological disorders. However, there is great variability in cell type, preparation methods, and implantation technique, which are crucial to clinical outcomes.


OBJECTIVE
We compared manual injection with automated injection using a prototype device to determine the possible value of a mechanized delivery system.


METHODS
Neural progenitor cells and bone marrow stromal cells were injected using manual or automated methods. Consistency of injection volumes and cell number and viability were evaluated immediately or 1 day after injection.


RESULTS
When cells were delivered as a series of 3 manual injections from the same syringe, the variation in fluid volume was greater than for single manual injections. Automated delivery of a series of 3 injections resulted in a lower variability in the amount of delivery than manual injection for both cell lines (1.2%-2.6% coefficient of variability for automated delivery vs 4.3%-24.0% for manual delivery). The amount delivered from injection 1 to injection 3 increased significantly with manual injections, whereas the amount injected did not vary over the 3 injections for the automated unit. Cell viability 1 day after injection was typically 30% to 40% of the value immediately after injection for the bone marrow stromal cells and 30% to 70% for the neural progenitor cells. There were no significant differences in viability attributed to the method of injection.


CONCLUSIONS
The automated delivery device led to enhanced consistency of volumetric cell delivery but did not improve cell viability in the methods tested. Automated techniques could be useful in standardizing reproducible procedures for cell transplantation and improve both preclinical and clinical research.
Department of Neurological Surgery, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
Glenn T
GT
Gobbel
Douglas
D
Kondziolka
Wendy
W
Fellows-Mayle
Martin
M
Uram
D053687:Adult Stem Cells / Q000502:physiology / Q000637:transplantation*; D000818:Animals; D001854:Bone Marrow Cells / Q000166:cytology / Q000502:physiology; D002452:Cell Count / Q000379:methods; D017690:Cell Transplantation / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000502:physiology; D002478:Cells, Cultured; D001330:Electronic Data Processing; D005260:Female; D007267:Injections / Q000379:methods; D051379:Mice; D008810:Mice, Inbred C57BL; D058953:Neural Stem Cells / Q000502:physiology / Q000637:transplantation*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013594:Syringes