Stem Cells in Clinical Trials for Pelvic Floor Disorders: a Systematic Literature Review
Manodoro S., Frigerio M., Barba M., Bosio S., de Vitis LA., Marconi AM.
Systematic Review, published in Reprod Sci (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Reprod Sci (2022)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 34596887
- PMCID
- PMC9110489
- DOI
- 10.1007/s43032-021-00745-6
- Citations
- 12
Abstract (original English)
Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) include a series of conditions that can be poorly tolerated, negatively affecting the quality of life. Current treatment options show unsatisfactory results and new ones are therefore needed. Stem cell (SC) therapy might be an alternative treatment strategy. This systematic review aims to define the state of art of SC therapy for PFDs in clinical trials, by systematically reviewing the available evidence. A systematic search strategy was conducted up to November 7, 2020, in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science. Preclinical studies on animal models were not considered. Studies were included when the patients were affected by any PFDs and cells were isolated, cultured, and characterized as SC. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020216551). A total of 11 prospective clinical studies were included in the final assessment, specifically 7 single-arm studies dealing with SC therapy for stress urinary incontinence and 4 with anal incontinence. Among the latter, there were two prospective, single-arm studies and two randomized controlled trials. No papers concerning the use of SC for prolapse repair were retrieved. Due to the great heterogeneity, data pooling was not possible. Stem cell injection resulted in a safe procedure, with few mild adverse side effects, mostly related to harvesting sites. However, a clear benefic
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.