Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Biologics in rotator cuff surgery

Schär MO., Rodeo SA., Zumstein MA.

Narrative Review on Tendon Injury, Rotator Cuff, published in Shoulder Elbow (2014) — 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
Shoulder Elbow (2014)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
27582941
PMCID
PMC4935033
DOI
10.1177/1758573214536536
Citations
6

Abstract (original English)

Pathologies of the rotator cuff are by far the most common cause of shoulder dysfunction and pain. Even though reconstruction of the rotator cuff results in improved clinical outcome scores, including decreased pain, several studies report high failure rates. Orthopaedic research has therefore focused on biologically augmenting the rotator cuff reconstruction and improving tendon-bone healing of the rotator cuff. This biological augmentation has included the application of different platelet concentrates containing growth factors, mesenchymal stem cells, scaffolds and a combination of the above. The present review provides an overview over the biological augmentation options based upon current evidence.

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