Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Intra-Articular Injection of Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Leading to Better Clinical Outcomes without Difference in MRI Outcomes from Baseline in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis

Shin YS., Yoon JR., Kim HS., Lee SH.

Meta-analysis on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, published in Knee Surg Relat Res (2018) — 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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Knee Surg Relat Res (2018)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
29983008
PMCID
PMC6122947
DOI
10.5792/ksrr.17.201
Citations
25

Abstract (original English)

Purpose Bone marrow (BM) is frequently used as a source of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) because they have a high potential for differentiation. However, it is unclear whether BM-derived MSCs lead to better clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes postoperatively. Materials and methods This meta-analysis compared the clinical and MRI outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) treated with BM-derived MSCs. Eight studies comparing the clinical and MRI outcomes assessed with various measurement tools in patients with knee OA treated with BM-derived MSCs were included. Results The range of motion (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.05 to 4.24; p=0.32) and MRI outcomes (95% CI, -0.16 to 1.40; p=0.12) did not differ significantly between the baseline and final follow-up. In contrast, pain (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.87; p<0.001) and functional outcomes (95% CI, 0.70 to 2.07; p<0.001) were significantly improved at the final follow-up when compared to the baseline. Conclusions This meta-analysis found no significant difference in the tested range of motion and MRI outcomes between the baseline and the final follow-up in patients treated with BM-derived MSCs, whereas significant functional improvement and pain relief were noted when compared with the baseline. Thus, BM-derived MSCs appear to be a viable alternative for patients with knee OA, although long-term and high-qual

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