Emerging biologic augmentation strategies for meniscal repair: a systematic review

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

Abstract (original English)

Background Meniscal repair should be the gold standard. However, the meniscus is poorly vascularized and even an excellent meniscus repair may not heal. Therefore, numerous studies and systematic reviews have been carried out on platelet-rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and fibrin clots for meniscal augmentation, but the results remain controversial. This systematic review aimed to identify other emerging strategies for meniscal repair augmentation and to assess whether there are different avenues to explore in this field. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted in August 2022. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE(R) all, Ovid All EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase and ISI Web of Science databases were searched. In Vivo animal and human studies concerning the biological augmentation of meniscal lesions by factors other than PRP, MSCs or fibrin clots were included. Cartilage-only studies, previous systematic reviews and expert opinions were excluded. All data were analyzed by two independent reviewers. Results Of 8965 studies only nineteen studies covering 12 different factors met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies investigated the use of growth factors for meniscal biologic augmentation, such as vascular endothelial growth factor or bone morphogenic protein 7. Five studies reported on cell therapy and six studies focused on other factors such as hyaluronic acid, simvastat

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.

Browse all related research

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