Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Are orthobiologics a plausible therapeutic option for patello-femoral pathology? A systematic review of clinical and radiological outcomes

Franceschi C., Abu Salem Y., Conte P., Anzillotti G., Di Matteo B., Lipina M.

Systematic Review on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • 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
Systematic Review
Journal
Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
42367388
PMCID
PMC13303695
DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2026.1842090

Abstract (original English)

Introduction Even though orthobiologics have been extensively studied in the treatment of tricompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA), evidence specifically addressing their role in the management of patello-femoral pathology remains limited. Thus, the aim of the present systematic review is to critically analyze and synthesize the available clinical and, where reported, radiological evidence on the safety and the therapeutic efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP)- and mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC)-based products in the treatment of patello-femoral chondropathy (PFC) and patello-femoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). Materials and methods A comprehensive search of four medical electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane) was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective studies on humans evaluating the use of PRP- or MSC-based products in the treatment of PFC and PFOA. Results A total of nine eligible studies were included; of them, four investigated PRP-based therapies and five evaluated MSC-based products. Despite the generally poor methodological quality of the existing body of evidence, a consistent trend towards a clinical and, where reported, radiological improvement was observed across the included studies, with between-group comparisons confirming the clinical superiority of both PRP- and MSC-based approaches compared to

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research