Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMed

Assessment of safety and efficacy of intra-articular injection of stromal vascular fraction for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis-a systematic review.

Shanmugasundaram S., Vaish A., Chavada V., Murrell WD., Vaishya R.

Systematic Review with a reported sample of 290 on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, published in Int Orthop (2021) — 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
Int Orthop (2021)
Country
Germany
Reported sample size
290
Source database
PubMed
PMID
33432400
DOI
10.1007/s00264-020-04926-x
Citations
31

Abstract (original English)

Purpose Stromal vascular fraction (SVF) as an injectable regenerative therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) has gained recent popularity. However, there is no clear consensus on the outcomes of such treatment. We systematically reviewed available evidence on the use of SVF injection in the treatment of knee OA. Methods The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with keyword search in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library Database and related article search in Google Scholar. Clinical studies demonstrating effects of SVF in knee OA and published in English literature were included. Risk of bias assessment was done with modified Coleman Methodology Scoring (CMS). Results Eleven studies (9 prospective, 2 retrospective) that contributed to 290 knees in 200 patients were included. Two studies that contributed to 3718 knee injections were excluded from pooled analysis and were scrutinized separately. Majority of patients reported improvement in pain, range of motion (ROM), functional rating, six metre walking distance, and functional outcome scores. There was no major donor-site morbidity. There was only one reported case of knee joint infection and no case of tumour formation in relation to SVF injection. Discussion Intra-articular injection of SVF can be a simple, affordable, and minimally invas

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
Adipose TissueHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationOsteoarthritis, KneeProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Browse all related research

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

Related research