Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Therapeutics for tendon regeneration: a multidisciplinary review of tendon research for improved healing

Paredes JJ., Andarawis-Puri N.

Narrative Review on Tendon Injury, Chronic Wound, Scar, published in Ann N Y Acad Sci (2016) — 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
Ann N Y Acad Sci (2016)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
27768813
PMCID
PMC5560267
DOI
10.1111/nyas.13228
Citations
28

Abstract (original English)

Tendon injuries, known as tendinopathies, are common musculoskeletal injuries that affect a wide range of the population. Canonical tendon healing is characterized by fibrosis, scar formation, and the loss of tissue mechanical and structural properties. Understanding the regenerative tendon environment is an area of increasing interest in the field of musculoskeletal research. Previous studies have focused on utilizing individual elements from the fields of biomechanics, developmental biology, cell and growth factor therapy, and tissue engineering in an attempt to develop regenerative tendon therapeutics. Still, the specific mechanism for regenerative healing remains unknown. In this review, we highlight some of the current approaches of tendon therapeutics and elucidate the differences along the tendon midsubstance and enthesis, exhibiting the necessity of location-specific tendon therapeutics. Furthermore, we emphasize the necessity of further interdisciplinary research in order to reach the desired goal of fully understanding the mechanisms underlying regenerative healing.

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
AnimalsHumansTendon InjuriesIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsCombined Modality TherapyTissue EngineeringRegenerationWound HealingTissue ScaffoldsCell- and Tissue-Based Therapy

Browse all related research

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

Related research