ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2024
Efficacy of stromal vascular fraction for knee osteoarthritis: A prospective, single-centre, non-randomized study with 2 years follow-up.
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraarticular injection of the stromal vascular fraction for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Temporal Hierarchy of Hydrogels and Orthobiologic Therapies for Knee Osteoarthritis.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Towards optimized rehabilitation with regenerative therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of cell-based injections for knee osteoarthritis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Clinical Applications of Stromal Vascular Fraction and Stromal Vascular Matrix for Osteoarthritis: A Commentary.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative outcome analyses of stromal vascular fractionWorld journal of experimental medicine · 2025Article
- Challenges in the clinical translation of stromal vascular fraction therapy in regenerative medicine.World journal of stem cells · 2025Review
- Adipose Tissue-Derived Therapies for Osteoarthritis: Multifaceted Mechanisms and Clinical Prospects.Cells · 2025Review
- Current status of nanofat in the management of knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Article
- Evidence-based orthobiologic practice: Current evidence review and future directions.World journal of orthopedics · 2024Article
- Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Secretome as a New Possible Approach to Treat Cartilage Damage: An In Vitro Study.Biomolecules · 2024Article
- Understanding and controlling the variables for stromal vascular fraction therapy.World journal of stem cells · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent osteoarthritis (OA) treatments focus on symptom relief without addressing the underlying disease process. In regenerative medicine, current treatments have limitations. In regenerative medicine, more research is needed for intra-articular stromal vascular fraction (SVF) injections in OA, including dosage optimization, long-term efficacy, safety, comparisons with other treatments, and mechanism exploration.
aimTo compare the efficacy of intra-articular SVF with corticosteroid (ICS) injections in patients with primary knee OA.
methodsThe study included 50 patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grades II and III OA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a single intra-articular SVF injection (group A) or a single intra-articular ICS (triamcinolone) (group B) injection. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Visual analog score (VAS) and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were administered before the procedure and at all follow-ups. The safety of SVF in terms of adverse and severe adverse events was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS Version 26.0, IBM Corp, Chicago, IL, United States.
resultsBoth groups had similar demographics and baseline clinical characteristics. Follow-up showed minor patient loss, resulting in 23 and 24 in groups A and B respectively. Group A experienced a notable reduction in pain, with VAS scores decreasing from 7.7 to 2.4 over 24 months, compared to a minor reduction from 7.8 to 6.2 in Group B. This difference in pain reduction in group A was statistically significant from the third month onwards. Additionally, Group A showed significant improvements in knee functionality, with IKDC scores rising from 33.4 to 83.10, whereas Group B saw a modest increase from 36.7 to 45.16. The improvement in Group A was statistically significant from 6 months and maintained through 24 months.
conclusionOur study demonstrated that intra-articular administration of SVF can lead to reduced pain and improved knee function in patients with primary knee OA. More adequately powered, multi-center, double-blinded, randomised clinical trials with longer follow-ups are needed to further establish safety and justify its clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.