Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

The current status of nano-hydrogel preparations for osteochondral repair: Systematic Review

Amhare AF., Qiao L., Deng H., Lin J., Wang J., Wang W.

Systematic Review on Cartilage Damage, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2025) — 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
Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
40666699
PMCID
PMC12259566
DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2025.1611522
Citations
4

Abstract (original English)

Background Osteochondral defects, involving both cartilage and subchondral bone, remain clinically challenging due to the poor intrinsic healing capacity of cartilage and the limited durability of traditional treatments. This systematic review aims to evaluate current advancements in nano-hydrogel formulations for osteochondral repair, focusing on their composition, preparation methods, mechanical properties, biocompatibility, and regenerative outcomes. Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Eligible studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies were assessed using CAMARADES checklist, which considered factors such as randomization, blinding, animal welfare compliance, outcome reporting, and study reproducibility. Data synthesis was performed through structured tabulation and subgroup stratification by scaffold structure (single-phase, bilayered, trilayered, gradient), formulation type (injectable vs. preformed), and polymer origin (natural, synthetic, hybrid). Results A total of 41 studies were included, encompassing both in vitro and in vivo models, with participant numbers ranging from small animal models (e.g., rabbits, ra

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research