SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Evidence for Utilization of Injectable Biologic Augmentation in Primary Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review of Data From 2010 to 2022.

Bono OJ., Jenkin B., Forlizzi J., Mousad A., Le Breton S., MacAskill M.

Systematic Review on Tendon Injury, Rotator Cuff, published in Orthop J Sports Med (2023) — 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
Orthop J Sports Med (2023)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
PMID
36756167
DOI
10.1177/23259671221150037

Abstract (original English)

Biologic healing after rotator cuff repair remains a significant challenge. Injectable biologic augmentation may improve tissue quality at the suture-tendon interface. To investigate the effect of injectable biologic supplementation in rotator cuff repair and to assess the quality and adherence to evolving reporting standards. Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included were 40 studies: 29 preclinical (in vivo animal models) and 11 clinical. Each clinical study was assessed for quality, risk of bias, and adherence to relevant MIBO (Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics) guidelines. The outcomes of interest were reported load to failure, load to gap, gap size, and stiffness in the preclinical studies, and healing rate and any patient-reported outcome measures in the clinical studies. Injectables reported included growth factors (eg, transforming growth factor-beta 3, erythropoietin), bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs), and other agents such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid. The most common findings for preclinical injectables were increased load to failure (16/29 studies; 55.2%) and improved collagen histological quality (11/29 studies; 3

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
Face & SkinShoulderTendon InjuryRotator Cuff
View on PubMedDOI

Related research