Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewPubMed

Unapproved regenerative medicine for spinal cord injury in Japan.

Ukon Y., Hakui H., Hosoya S., Morita K., Mae H., Kanie Y.

Narrative Review on Spinal Cord Injury, published in Regen Ther (2026) — 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
Regen Ther (2026)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
42238824
DOI
10.1016/j.reth.2026.101132

Abstract (original English)

This study presented an overview of unapproved regenerative medicine for spinal cord injury (SCI) in Japan under the Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine. In total, 41 non-research regenerative medicine provision plans were identified. Three plans (7%) specified administration exclusively during the chronic phase, whereas remaining plans did not state the period. Most therapies used adipose-derived (68%) or bone marrow-derived (32%) mesenchymal stem cells. The most common administration route was intravenous (71%), followed by intrathecal (27%). Culture periods were typically around four weeks, and the most frequently administered cell dose was 1.0 × 10 8 cells, although variability existed across plans. The mean treatment price was 14,100 USD. Clinical research conducted under the RM Act and approved regenerative medical products primarily targeted subacute SCI, using standardized cell sources, dosing strategies, and safety evaluations. These findings demonstrate marked heterogeneity and limited scientific standardization among unapproved regenerative medicine for SCI in Japan.

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