SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Cellular Augmentation of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery Is Not Currently Evidence Based: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.

Baird JPE., Anz A., Andrews J., Plummer HA., McGowan B., Gonzalez M.

Systematic Review on Ligament Injury, published in Arthroscopy (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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
Arthroscopy (2022)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
PMID
34921956
DOI
10.1016/j.arthro.2021.11.056

Abstract (original English)

To perform a systematic review of clinical outcome studies exploring cellular augmentation of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery, including stem cell techniques. A systematic search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Cochrane, PubMed, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases from 2000 to 2019. The inclusion criteria were clinical studies that reported on ACL surgery augmented with stem cells or cellular therapy and patient-reported outcome measures or graft healing. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized trials were assessed using the Methodological Items for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. Methodologic assessment was performed according to the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. Four studies were found: 2 randomized clinical trials, 1 cohort study with a matched historical control group, and 1 case series. The mean Modified Coleman Methodology Score in these studies was 59, and there was a low risk of bias in 1 study. One study reported outcomes of augmented ACL repair, and 3 studies reported the results of augmented ACL reconstruction. Cellular therapies varied and included concentrated bone marrow aspirate, collagenase/centrifuge processed

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
Anterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionCohort StudiesHumansPlatelet-Rich PlasmaRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic
KneeLigament Injury
View on PubMedDOI

Related research