Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewPubMedOpen access

Biologic Augmentation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Beyond: A Review of PRP and BMAC.

Pham GM.

Narrative Review on Tendon Injury, Ligament Injury, Chronic Inflammation, published in J Clin Med (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
J Clin Med (2025)
Country
Switzerland
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
41096038
PMCID
PMC12525454
DOI
10.3390/jcm14196959

Abstract (original English)

This narrative review synthesizes PubMed- and Scopus-indexed studies from 2020 to 2025, including preclinical animal models, prospective cohort studies, and level I and II randomized trials, to compare two leading biologic augmentation strategies: platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). The review examines underlying mechanisms of action, delivery techniques, imaging biomarkers of graft maturation, patient-reported and functional outcomes, safety profiles, cost-effectiveness, and regulatory frameworks. PRP provides early anti-inflammatory and proangiogenic signaling, while BMAC delivers a concentrated population of mesenchymal stem cells and growth factors to the tendon-bone interface. Both modalities consistently enhance MRI-defined graft maturation, yet evidence of long-term functional or biomechanical superiority remains inconclusive. Emerging therapies such as peptide hydrogels, adipose-derived stem cells, and exosome delivery offer promising avenues for future research. Standardized protocols and large multicenter trials are needed to clarify comparative efficacy and inform personalized rehabilitation strategies.

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