Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Tissue engineering strategies for the treatment of tendon injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal models

González-Quevedo D., Martínez-Medina I., Campos A., Campos F., Carriel V.

Meta-analysis on Tendon Injury, published in Bone Joint Res (2018) — 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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Bone Joint Res (2018)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
29922450
PMCID
PMC5987687
DOI
10.1302/2046-3758.74.bjr-2017-0326
Citations
22

Abstract (original English)

Objectives Recently, the field of tissue engineering has made numerous advances towards achieving artificial tendon substitutes with excellent mechanical and histological properties, and has had some promising experimental results. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of tissue engineering in the treatment of tendon injuries. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for the time period 1999 to 2016 for trials investigating tissue engineering used to improve tendon healing in animal models. The studies were screened for inclusion based on randomization, controls, and reported measurable outcomes. The RevMan software package was used for the meta-analysis. Results A total of 388 references were retrieved and 35 studies were included in this systematic review. The different biomaterials developed were analyzed and we found that they improve the biomechanical and histological characteristics of the repaired tendon. At meta-analysis, despite a high heterogeneity, it revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of the maximum load, the maximum stress, and the Young's modulus between experimental and control groups. In the forest plot, the diamond was on the right side of the vertical line and did not intersect with the line, favouring experimental groups. Conclusions This review of the literature demonstrates the heterogeneity

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