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

Current Overview on the Use of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Perianal Fistula Treatment in Patients with Crohn's Disease

Włodarczyk M., Czerwińska K., Włodarczyk J., Fichna J., Dziki A., Dziki Ł.

Narrative Review on Autoimmune Research, published in Life (Basel) (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
Life (Basel) (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34833009
PMCID
PMC8622588
DOI
10.3390/life11111133
Citations
5

Abstract (original English)

Perianal fistula in patients with Crohn's disease is an extremely challenging condition. The disease tends to reoccur, and with current treatment options, a large number of patients are left with active ailment and experience major morbidity. In recent years, hopeful results regarding local use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in perianal Crohn's disease have been published. Although to this day there are no clear guidelines determining optimal dosage, injections frequency and culture conditions, their efficiency has proven to be much higher than conventionally used methods. According to studies, they can effectively induce as well as maintain fistula closure. This approach also avoids common side effects related to conventional surgical 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