Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyEurope PMCOpen access

The use of injectable orthobiologics for knee osteoarthritis: A formal ESSKA-ORBIT consensus. Part 2-Cell-based therapy

de Girolamo L., Filardo G., Abat F., Barfod KW., Bastos R., Cugat R.

Prospective Study on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, published in Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • 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
Prospective Study
Journal
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
40923345
PMCID
PMC12582236
DOI
10.1002/ksa.70001
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

Purpose This European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus aims to provide evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for the use of point-of-care- and expanded-cell-based therapy (CBT) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA), focusing on indications, preparation, and administration. Methods A multidisciplinary group of 77 leading experts in musculoskeletal regenerative medicine from 22 European Countries formed a steering group, a rating group, and a reader group. The steering group developed 23 questions, originating from 27 statements. The statements were graded from A (high-level scientific evidence) to D (expert opinion). The question-statement sets were scored by the rating group from 1 to 9 according to the level of agreement. The document was then assessed for geographic adaptability by the reader group composed of representatives from ESSKA-affiliated societies. Results Overall, the statements received a mean score of 8.2 (standard deviation: 0.3) points out of a possible 9 and a median score of 8 (range: 6-9). Among the 27 statements, 9 were considered appropriate with strong agreement, and 18 were considered appropriate with relative agreement. Five statements received a recommendation level of A or B, and 22 were rated as C or D. In terms of geographic adaptability, 18 affiliated ESSKA Societies expressed

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
HumansOsteoarthritis, KneeInjections, Intra-ArticularConsensusEuropeCell- and Tissue-Based Therapy

Browse all related research

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

Related research