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

Biological Augmentation of Meniscal Repair: A Review with Insights into Injectable Hydrogel Delivery

Tuszynska M., Skopinska-Wisniewska J., Bajek A.

Narrative Review on Osteoarthritis, Meniscus Injury, published in Gels (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
Gels (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41149391
PMCID
PMC12562484
DOI
10.3390/gels11100786

Abstract (original English)

Meniscal injuries are common and often lead to chronic pain, joint instability, and an increased risk of osteoarthritis. Traditional treatments, such as partial meniscectomy, may accelerate joint degeneration. In recent years, biologically active therapies, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), hyaluronic acid (HA), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), collagen, growth factors (GFs), and silk fibroin (SF), have emerged as promising strategies to enhance meniscal healing. This review evaluates the efficiency of these biological agents in promoting meniscal repair, with a particular focus on their potential integration into injectable hydrogel systems for targeted, minimally invasive delivery. Recent literature from 2015 to 2025 has provided growing insights into the role of biologically active agents and biomaterials in meniscal repair. Among the agents studied, PRP, MSCs, and HA have shown particular promise in modulating inflammation and supporting tissue regeneration. While biological therapies alone may not replace surgery for complex tears, they offer promising, less invasive alternatives that support tissue preservation. However, variability in study design, agent quality, and treatment protocols remains challenging. Further long-term research will be essential to confirm clinical benefits and optimize hydrogel-based delivery methods.

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