Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Postprocedure protocols after intraarticular orthobiologic injections-A scoping review

Kruse RC., Rossmiller KD., Fleagle TR.

Laboratory Study on Osteoarthritis, Chronic Inflammation, published in PM R (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
Laboratory Study
Journal
PM R (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39382011
PMCID
PMC11974486
DOI
10.1002/pmrj.13271
Citations
3

Abstract (original English)

Osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative disease affecting 500 million people throughout the world. Although orthobiologics have been proposed as a symptom and disease modifying treatment for osteoarthritis, there is significant heterogeneity in the results of the orthobiologic procedures in the literature. One possible explanation for the heterogeneity is the inconsistent reporting and description of the postorthobiologic protocols. The goal of this scoping review was to identify the current literature on the use of orthobiologics for osteoarthritis and critically evaluate the postorthobiologic protocol within these studies. A total of 200 identified studies met inclusion criteria. In 37.5% of studies, there was no mention of a postorthobiologic protocol. Of the 125 studies that did mention a postorthobiologic protocol, only 38.4% included a rehabilitation protocol, 21.6% included postprocedure weightbearing restrictions, and only 2 (1.6%) mentioned the use of durable medical equipment. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug restriction was described in 91.2% of study protocols, whereas corticosteroids and immunosuppressants were restricted in 84.8% and 19.2% of protocols, respectively. The results of this scoping review demonstrate the inconsistent reporting of postorthobiologic procedure protocols in the literature, with significant heterogeneity in those that are described. Th

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

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

How we grade evidence
HumansOsteoarthritisInjections, Intra-Articular

Browse all related research

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

Related research