Clinical Efficacy of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Versus Stromal Vascular Fraction Injection in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Knee injection using either bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) or stromal vascular fraction (SVF) from adipose tissue has been shown to result in symptomatic improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). It is still unclear whether one of these therapies is superior over the other. Purpose: To systematically report the clinical studies evaluating BMAC and SVF in the treatment of knee OA and to compare the clinical efficacy of these 2 injection therapies. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This meta-analysis was performed per the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Studies were included if they reported the clinical outcomes after a single BMAC or SVF injection in the knee joint of patients with OA. Studies evaluating preparations of culture-expanded stem cells were excluded. A random effects model was used; the clinical efficacy of BMAC or SVF injection was assessed using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and compared. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) knee index were the primary outcomes. The level of statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results: Ten studies and 472 patients with knee OA who received either BMAC (233 patients) or SVF (239 patients) were included. Patients who received an injection had improved VAS outcomes (mean ± SD): from 5.8 ± 1.3 to 2.6 ± 17 for BMAC and from 6.4 ± 1.4 to 3.4 ± 0.5 for SVF. They also experienced significantly reduced pain (SMD [VAS], 2.6 for BMAC and 3.4 for SVF) and improved function (SMD [WOMAC], 1.4 for BMAC and 1.2 for SVF). However, the SVF injection had a significantly greater effect on pain reduction than did the BMAC injection ( P < .0001). Based on WOMAC, the clinical effect of BMAC versus SVF knee injection in patients with knee OA was equivalent ( P = .626). Results were limited by the presence of publication bias as well as variability in the preparation methods utilized in the BMAC and SVF injection protocols. Complications were reported in 50% of the BMAC studies (knee stiffness, persistent knee swelling) and 67% of the SVF studies (knee swelling, knee pain, positive SVF cultures without symptoms of infection, and bleeding at the abdominal harvest site). Conclusion: A single BMAC or SVF injection into the knee joint of patients with OA resulted in symptomatic improvement at short-term follow-up. However, SVF seemed to be more effective than did BMAC in the reduction of knee pain. There was significant variation in the BMAC and SVF injection preparation techniques used across the studies and a lack of stratification of outcomes based on the radiologic classification of OA. Therefore, these results should be taken with caution.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,023 | 0,043 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».