Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMed

Meniscus Repair and Regeneration: A Systematic Review from a Basic and Translational Science Perspective.

Twomey-Kozak J., Jayasuriya CT.

Systematic Review on Osteoarthritis, Meniscus Injury, published in Clin Sports Med (2020) — 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
Systematic Review
Journal
Clin Sports Med (2020)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
31767102
PMCID
PMC6884076
DOI
10.1016/j.csm.2019.08.003
Citations
43

Abstract (original English)

Meniscus injuries are among the most common athletic injuries and result in functional impairment in the knee. Repair is crucial for pain relief and prevention of degenerative joint diseases like osteoarthritis. Current treatments, however, do not produce long-term improvements. Thus, recent research has been investigating new therapeutic options for regenerating injured meniscal tissue. This review comprehensively details the current methodologies being explored in the basic sciences to stimulate better meniscus injury repair. Furthermore, it describes how these preclinical strategies may improve current paradigms of how meniscal injuries are clinically treated through a unique and alternative perspective to traditional clinical methodology.

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
Adipose TissueBiomechanical PhenomenaBone Marrow CellsCartilageChondrocytesHumansIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsMenisci, TibialPlatelet-Rich FibrinPlatelet-Rich Plasma

Browse all related research

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

Related research