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

Applications of bone regenerative medicine in the foot and ankle: mechanisms, technologies, and therapeutic advances

Yang L., Li Y., Wang T., Zhao Z., Li W., Lv J.

Narrative Review on Osteoarthritis, Cartilage Damage, Ankle Injury, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2025) — 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
Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41404194
PMCID
PMC12704982
DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2025.1653964

Abstract (original English)

Background Foot and ankle diseases significantly impact quality of life, with regenerative medicine emerging as a promising approach. A comprehensive evaluation of both efficacy and safety is paramount for its clinical translation. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed using keywords "regenerative medicine" and "foot and ankle" (as of 31 December 2024). Studies were categorized by technology and disease. Results PRP and HA showed short-term efficacy in talar cartilage repair; stem cells enhanced functional recovery in ankle osteoarthritis. 3D printing enabled personalized implants. Exosomes and AI were identified as future directions. However, the reporting of safety data was often sporadic and non-standardized, highlighting the need for more systematic monitoring in future studies. Conclusion Regenerative therapies demonstrate potential but require further validation through robust trials that prioritize standardized safety reporting alongside efficacy outcomes. Gaps in exosome isolation, long-term safety, and clinical translation need addressing.

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research