SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Mesenchymal stem cells injections in traumatology and orthopaedics: common practice or still a promising area with many uncertainties?

Bezuglov E., Dolgalev I., Kuznetsova M., Zholinskiy A., Savin E., Goncharov E.

Systematic Review on Osteoarthritis, published in BMC Musculoskelet Disord (2025) — 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
BMC Musculoskelet Disord (2025)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
PMID
40898126
DOI
10.1186/s12891-025-09123-8

Abstract (original English)

To assess research directions of the Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) injections in traumatology and orthopaedics. The study monitored the protocols of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) investigating mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) injections for various traumatological and orthopaedic conditions. Relevant RCT protocols were identified through searches of ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, EU Clinical Trials Register databases for RCTs and SRs were obtained from PROSPERO. The databases were searched from their inception to December 2023. A total of 449 clinical trials were identified. At the time of the study, 159 (35.4%) trials had been completed, and only 56 (12.5%) had published results in peer-reviewed journals. Data on clinical trial completion were normally distributed (p = 0.145). The duration for trial completion was 40.6 ± 26.5 months (range: 1 to 153 months). The most commonly investigated indications for MSCs injections were osteoarthritis of the hip and knee (37.6%) and spinal cord injuries (10.5%). The most frequent sources of MSCs were bone marrow (26.5%), adipose-derived (20.5%) and umbilical cord (15.4%). Reported MSCs concentrations varied widely, ranging from 0.5 × 10⁶ to 9.7 × 10⁸ cells. The most frequently used concentrations were 1 × 10⁷ (8.2%), 2 × 10⁷ (8.0%), 5 × 10⁷ (5.8%), and 10 × 10⁷ (5.8%) cel

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
HumansMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTraumatologyOrthopedicsSystematic Reviews as Topic
KneeBack & SpineHipOsteoarthritis
View on PubMedDOI

Related research