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

Biologics in shoulder and elbow pathology

Haunschild ED., Gilat R., Fu MC., Condron N., Cole BJ.

Narrative Review on Rotator Cuff, published in JSES Rev Rep Tech (2021) — 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
JSES Rev Rep Tech (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37588635
PMCID
PMC10426570
DOI
10.1016/j.xrrt.2020.11.002
Citations
3

Abstract (original English)

In recent years, orthobiologics have been of increasing clinical interest in the treatment of shoulder and elbow pathology. In some conditions, such as rotator cuff injury and lateral epicondylitis, there have been high-quality trials that support the use of platelet-rich plasma in reducing pain, restoring functionality, and improving clinical outcomes. However, as the numbers of both cellular-based biologics and the conditions being augmented by biologics continue to expand, there is a substantial need for high-quality investigations to support their routine use in most shoulder and elbow conditions. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current evidence of orthobiologics in the management of shoulder and elbow injury, as nonoperative treatment and as augments to operative treatment.

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