Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Optimizing mesenchymal stem cell therapy for tendon-bone healing: Multifaceted approaches and future directions

Li H., Li ZP., Zhu MT., Lan CH., Wang YX., Liao P.

Narrative Review on Tendon Injury, published in World J Stem Cells (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Narrative Review
Journal
World J Stem Cells (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41480394
PMCID
PMC12754425
DOI
10.4252/wjsc.v17.i12.114076

Abstract (original English)

Tendon-bone healing remains a significant clinical challenge due to the high risk of re-rupture following injury. While mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) show great potential in enhancing tendon-bone healing, their clinical application is limited by issues such as low delivery efficiency, restricted differentiation potential, and potential immunogenicity. Recently, various strategies combining MSCs with other approaches, such as preconditioning, biomaterial integration, gene modification, and exosome application, have been developed, resulting in improved therapeutic outcomes. This review explored the current methods used to optimize MSC therapy for tendon-bone healing, examining the advantages, disadvantages, and underlying mechanisms of each approach, providing a foundation for future research and clinical applications.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research