Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMed

Orthobiologic injections for hip osteoarthritis: A systematic review of clinical outcomes.

Scott P., Hegarty CJ., Kang L., Boettcher BJ., Sellon JL., Krych AJ.

Systematic Review with a reported sample of 36 on Osteoarthritis, Hip Osteoarthritis, published in Orthop Rev (Pavia) (2025) — 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
Orthop Rev (Pavia) (2025)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
36
Source database
PubMed
PMID
41450485
PMCID
PMC12727428
DOI
10.52965/001c.151461

Abstract (original English)

Objective The incidence of hip osteoarthritis (OA) is increasing with the aging population, leading to interest in intra-articular orthobiologic injections to alleviate symptoms and potentially slow disease progression. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with six orthobiologic therapies for hip OA: hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), autologous cells therapy (ACT), microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT), and bone marrow aspirate (BMA) and its concentration (BMAC). Methods We conducted a literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included in our review if they used at least one of the four orthobiologic therapies and reported on the clinical outcome using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Since there is a large variability among clinical outcomes, we focused on the three most utilized PROMs (VAS, WOMAC, and HHS) and the latest follow-up time point. Results Of the 716 studies reviewed, thirty-six studies (n=36) fit inclusion criteria. There were 21 studies examining HA, 11 on PRP, 3 for MFAT, 2 for ACT, and 3 on BMA/BMAC. Eight studies were randomized controlled trials and 28 were cohort studies. The mean age of the patient population ranged from 45 ± 17.0 to 74 ± 8.0. The baseline grade of osteoarthritis ranged from 1-4 but was most reported as moderate (2-3). Overall, there was an improvement in

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research