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

Current trends in tendinopathy: consensus of the ESSKA basic science committee. Part II: treatment options

Abat F., Alfredson H., Cucchiarini M., Madry H., Marmotti A., Mouton C.

Narrative Review on Tendon Injury, published in J Exp Orthop (2018) — 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
J Exp Orthop (2018)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
30251203
PMCID
PMC6153202
DOI
10.1186/s40634-018-0145-5
Citations
24

Abstract (original English)

The treatment of painful chronic tendinopathy is challenging. Multiple non-invasive and tendon-invasive methods are used. When traditional non-invasive treatments fail, the injections of platelet-rich plasma autologous blood or cortisone have become increasingly favored. However, there is little scientific evidence from human studies supporting injection treatment. As the last resort, intra- or peritendinous open or endoscopic surgery are employed even though these also show varying results. This ESSKA basic science committee current concepts review follows the first part on the biology, biomechanics and anatomy of tendinopathies, to provide a comprehensive overview of the latest treatment options for tendinopathy as reported in the literature.

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