Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMed

Biological intra-articular augmentation for osteotomy in knee osteoarthritis: strategies and results : A systematic review of the literature from the ESSKA Orthobiologics Initiative.

Reale D., Feltri P., Franceschini M., de Girolamo L., Laver L., Magalon J.

Systematic Review with a reported sample of 3580 on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, published in Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2023) — 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
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2023)
Country
Germany
Reported sample size
3580
Source database
PubMed
PMID
37330935
DOI
10.1007/s00167-023-07469-x

Abstract (original English)

To assess whether there is evidence supporting the use of augmentation strategies, either cartilage surgical procedures or injective orthobiologic options, to improve the results of osteotomies in knees with osteoarthritis (OA). A systematic review of the literature was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane databases in January 2023 on osteotomies around the knee associated with augmentation strategies (either cartilage surgical procedures or injective orthobiologic options), reporting clinical, radiological, or second-look/histological outcomes at any follow-up. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Coleman Methodology Score (CMS). Out of the 7650 records identified from the databases, 42 articles were included for a total of 3580 patients and 3609 knees treated; 33 articles focused on surgical treatments and 9 on injective treatments performed in association with knee osteotomy. Out of the 17 comparative studies with surgical augmentation, only 1 showed a significant clinical benefit of an augmentation procedure with a regenerative approach. Overall, other studies showed no differences with reparative techniques and even detrimental outcomes with microfractures. Regarding injective procedures, viscosupplementation showed no improvement, while the use of platelet-rich plasma or cell-based products derived from both bone mar

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
HumansOsteoarthritis, KneeInjections, Intra-ArticularKnee JointCartilageOsteotomyTreatment Outcome

Browse all related research

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

Related research