Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMed

Mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of cartilage lesions: from preclinical findings to clinical application in orthopaedics.

Filardo G., Madry H., Jelic M., Roffi A., Cucchiarini M., Kon E.

Systematic Review on Osteoarthritis, Cartilage Damage, published in Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2013) — 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
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2013)
Country
Germany
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
23306713
DOI
10.1007/s00167-012-2329-3
Citations
149

Abstract (original English)

Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to examine the available clinical evidence in the literature to support mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) treatment strategies in orthopaedics for cartilage defect regeneration. Methods The research was performed on the PubMed database considering the English literature from 2002 and using the following key words: cartilage, cartilage repair, mesenchymal stem cells, MSCs, bone marrow concentrate (BMC), bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells, bone marrow stromal cells, adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells, and synovial-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Results The systematic research showed an increasing number of published studies on this topic over time and identified 72 preclinical papers and 18 clinical trials. Among the 18 clinical trials identified focusing on cartilage regeneration, none were randomized, five were comparative, six were case series, and seven were case reports; two concerned the use of adipose-derived MSCs, five the use of BMC, and 11 the use of bone marrow-derived MSCs, with preliminary interesting findings ranging from focal chondral defects to articular osteoarthritis degeneration. Conclusions Despite the growing interest in this biological approach for cartilage regeneration, knowledge on this topic is still preliminary, as shown by the prevalence of preclinical studies and the presence of low-quality clinical

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 TissueAnimalsCartilage, ArticularCells, CulturedHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularKnee InjuriesMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationRegenerationSynovial Membrane

Browse all related research

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

Related research