Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Is Biological Augmentation Beneficial?

Rodríguez-Merchán EC.

Narrative Review on Ligament Injury, published in Int J Mol Sci (2021) — 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
Int J Mol Sci (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34830448
PMCID
PMC8625610
DOI
10.3390/ijms222212566
Citations
20

Abstract (original English)

Surgical reconstruction in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures has proven to be a highly effective technique that usually provides satisfactory results. However, despite the majority of patients recovering their function after this procedure, ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is still imperfect. To improve these results, various biological augmentation (BA) techniques have been employed mostly in animal models. They include: (1) growth factors (bone morphogenetic protein, epidermal growth factor, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, basic fibroblast growth factor, transforming growth factor-β, hepatocyte growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, and platelet concentrates such as platelet-rich plasma, fibrin clot, and autologous conditioned serum), (2) mesenchymal stem cells, (3) autologous tissue, (4) various pharmaceuticals (matrix metalloproteinase-inhibitor alpha-2-macroglobulin bisphosphonates), (5) biophysical/environmental methods (hyperbaric oxygen, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, extracorporeal shockwave therapy), (6) biomaterials (fixation methods, biological coatings, biosynthetic bone substitutes, osteoconductive materials), and (7) gene therapy. All of them have shown good results in experimental studies; however, the clinical studies on BA published so far are highly heterogeneous and have a low degree of evidence. The most widely used technique to date i

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
Anterior Cruciate LigamentHumansIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsBone SubstitutesHyperbaric OxygenationMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationTransplantation, AutologousAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionGenetic TherapyAnterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries

Browse all related research

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

Related research