SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceRandomized Controlled Trial

Intra-articular Orthobiologics Show Statistically but Not Clinically Meaningful Improvements Compared With Viscosupplementation in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Han JH., Jung M., Chung K., Moon HS., Jung SH., Kim SH.

Randomized Controlled Trial with a reported sample of 2960 on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, Cartilage Damage, published in Arthroscopy (2026) — 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
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal
Arthroscopy (2026)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
2960
PMID
42524752
DOI
10.1002/arj.70411

Abstract (original English)

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP), stromal vascular fraction (SVF), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cell (UC-MSC), and hyaluronic acid (HA) for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis through network meta-analysis. A systematic search was conducted using major biomedical databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical efficacies of PRP, SVF, BMAC, UC-MSC, and HA. The clinical scores for pain and function were standardized for network meta-analysis based on minimal clinically important differences. Twenty-four studies, with 2960 patients, were included. SVF and BMAC showed significantly greater reductions in pain scores than HA at 3, 6, and 12 months (mean difference [MD], -0.7 to -1.1), whereas UC-MSC and PRP showed modest or nonsignificant effects (MD, -0.3 to -0.7). Functional outcomes showed a similar trend, with SVF and BMAC producing the greatest improvements (MD, -0.6 to -1.4), followed by UC-MSC and PRP (MD, -0.3 to -0.9). However, the magnitude of change in both pain and function did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference. At the final follow-up, SVF had the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curve, followed by BMAC and UC-MSC, with PRP ranking lower and HA showing the lowest va

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 & SkinKneeKnee OsteoarthritisOsteoarthritisCartilage Damage
View on PubMedDOI

Related research