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

Status and headway of the clinical application of artificial ligaments

Chen T., Jiang J., Chen S.

Narrative Review on Ligament Injury, published in Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol (2015) — 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
Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol (2015)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
29264235
PMCID
PMC5730644
DOI
10.1016/j.asmart.2014.11.001
Citations
19

Abstract (original English)

The authors first reviewed the history of clinical application of artificial ligaments. Then, the status of clinical application of artificial ligaments was detailed. Some artificial ligaments possessed comparable efficacy to, and fewer postoperative complications than, allografts and autografts in ligament reconstruction, especially for the anterior cruciate ligament. At the end, the authors focused on the development of two types of artificial ligaments: polyethylene glycol terephthalate artificial ligaments and tissue-engineered ligaments. In conclusion, owing to the advancements in surgical techniques, materials processing, and weaving methods, clinical application of some artificial ligaments so far has demonstrated good outcomes and will become a trend in the future.

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