Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

AAOS Research Symposium Updates and Consensus: Biologic Treatment of Orthopaedic Injuries

LaPrade RF., Dragoo JL., Koh JL., Murray IR., Geeslin AG., Chu CR.

Narrative Review on Tendon Injury, published in J Am Acad Orthop Surg (2016) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
J Am Acad Orthop Surg (2016)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
27227987
PMCID
PMC6548434
DOI
10.5435/jaaos-d-16-00086
Citations
65

Abstract (original English)

Strategies that seek to enhance musculoskeletal tissue regeneration and repair by modulating the biologic microenvironment at the site of injury have considerable therapeutic potential. Current and emerging biologic approaches include the use of growth factors, platelet-rich plasma, stem cell therapy, and scaffolds. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons hosted a research symposium in November 2015 to review the current state-of-the-art biologic treatments of articular cartilage, muscle, tendon, and bone injuries and identify knowledge gaps related to these emerging treatments. This review outlines the findings of the symposium and summarizes the consensus reached on how best to advance research on biologic treatment of orthopaedic injuries.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Cartilage, ArticularMuscle, SkeletalHumansTendon InjuriesBiological ProductsRegenerationFractures, BoneCongresses as Topic

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research