骨髓抽吸浓缩液注射剂治疗膝骨关节炎:随机对照试验的系统评价。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-04 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1177/23259671241296555
Joo Hyung Han, Min Jung, Kwangho Chung, Se-Han Jung, Chong-Hyuk Choi, Sung-Hwan Kim
{"title":"骨髓抽吸浓缩液注射剂治疗膝骨关节炎:随机对照试验的系统评价。","authors":"Joo Hyung Han, Min Jung, Kwangho Chung, Se-Han Jung, Chong-Hyuk Choi, Sung-Hwan Kim","doi":"10.1177/23259671241296555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Osteoarthritis (OA) poses a significant global burden, with conventional treatments like corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections commonly used. Emerging injectable biologics, including bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), show promise in OA management.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the clinical efficacy of BMAC injection compared with other injection treatments for knee OA.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials with Level 1 evidence that compared the clinical efficacy of BMAC with other injections. The visual analog scale for pain and the Pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were used as clinical scores representing pain. For functional assessment, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form were used. For studies comparing BMAC with HA, each clinical score was standardized to pain and function scales based on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies, consisting of a total of 937 patients, were included. Patients treated with BMAC showed a significant improvement in clinical scores compared with baseline, starting at 1 month postinjection. For pain scores at 6-month (<i>P</i> = .033) and 12-month follow-up (<i>P</i> = .011), BMAC demonstrated favorable results over HA, with a statistically significant difference. However, these differences did not exceed the MCID. When BMAC was compared with other injections, no significant differences were observed in the degree of clinical score improvement. No serious adverse events or events significantly associated with BMAC compared with other treatments were reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BMAC injections demonstrated effectiveness in providing pain relief and functional improvement for patients with knee OA. When BMAC was compared with other intra-articular injection options, distinct differences surpassing the MCID were not evident. Further research is deemed necessary to investigate the role of BMAC in the treatment of knee OA.</p>","PeriodicalId":19646,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"12 12","pages":"23259671241296555"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11618931/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Joo Hyung Han, Min Jung, Kwangho Chung, Se-Han Jung, Chong-Hyuk Choi, Sung-Hwan Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23259671241296555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Osteoarthritis (OA) poses a significant global burden, with conventional treatments like corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections commonly used. Emerging injectable biologics, including bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), show promise in OA management.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the clinical efficacy of BMAC injection compared with other injection treatments for knee OA.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials with Level 1 evidence that compared the clinical efficacy of BMAC with other injections. The visual analog scale for pain and the Pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were used as clinical scores representing pain. For functional assessment, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form were used. For studies comparing BMAC with HA, each clinical score was standardized to pain and function scales based on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies, consisting of a total of 937 patients, were included. Patients treated with BMAC showed a significant improvement in clinical scores compared with baseline, starting at 1 month postinjection. For pain scores at 6-month (<i>P</i> = .033) and 12-month follow-up (<i>P</i> = .011), BMAC demonstrated favorable results over HA, with a statistically significant difference. However, these differences did not exceed the MCID. When BMAC was compared with other injections, no significant differences were observed in the degree of clinical score improvement. No serious adverse events or events significantly associated with BMAC compared with other treatments were reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BMAC injections demonstrated effectiveness in providing pain relief and functional improvement for patients with knee OA. When BMAC was compared with other intra-articular injection options, distinct differences surpassing the MCID were not evident. Further research is deemed necessary to investigate the role of BMAC in the treatment of knee OA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 12\",\"pages\":\"23259671241296555\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11618931/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241296555\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241296555","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:骨关节炎(OA)是一种严重的全球性疾病,通常使用皮质类固醇和透明质酸(HA)注射等常规治疗方法。新兴的注射生物制剂,包括骨髓抽吸浓缩液(BMAC),在OA治疗中显示出希望。目的:探讨BMAC注射液与其他注射剂治疗膝关节炎的临床疗效。研究设计:系统评价;证据等级:1。方法:通过PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library和谷歌Scholar进行系统综述,找出证据为1级的随机对照试验,比较BMAC与其他注射剂的临床疗效。采用疼痛视觉模拟量表和膝关节损伤疼痛亚量表及骨关节炎结局评分(oos)作为疼痛的临床评分。对于功能评估,使用了西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数和国际膝关节文献委员会主观表格。对于比较BMAC和HA的研究,每个临床评分都基于最小临床重要差异(MCID)标准化为疼痛和功能量表。结果:纳入8项研究,共937例患者。从注射后1个月开始,接受BMAC治疗的患者的临床评分与基线相比有显著改善。6个月疼痛评分(P = 0.033)和12个月随访(P = 0.011), BMAC优于HA,差异有统计学意义。然而,这些差异并没有超过MCID。BMAC与其他注射剂比较,临床评分改善程度无显著差异。与其他治疗相比,未见严重不良事件或与BMAC显著相关的事件报道。结论:BMAC注射对膝关节OA患者疼痛缓解和功能改善有效。当BMAC与其他关节内注射方案进行比较时,明显优于MCID的差异并不明显。我们认为有必要进一步研究BMAC在膝关节OA治疗中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) poses a significant global burden, with conventional treatments like corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections commonly used. Emerging injectable biologics, including bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), show promise in OA management.

Purpose: To investigate the clinical efficacy of BMAC injection compared with other injection treatments for knee OA.

Study design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials with Level 1 evidence that compared the clinical efficacy of BMAC with other injections. The visual analog scale for pain and the Pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were used as clinical scores representing pain. For functional assessment, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form were used. For studies comparing BMAC with HA, each clinical score was standardized to pain and function scales based on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Results: Eight studies, consisting of a total of 937 patients, were included. Patients treated with BMAC showed a significant improvement in clinical scores compared with baseline, starting at 1 month postinjection. For pain scores at 6-month (P = .033) and 12-month follow-up (P = .011), BMAC demonstrated favorable results over HA, with a statistically significant difference. However, these differences did not exceed the MCID. When BMAC was compared with other injections, no significant differences were observed in the degree of clinical score improvement. No serious adverse events or events significantly associated with BMAC compared with other treatments were reported.

Conclusion: BMAC injections demonstrated effectiveness in providing pain relief and functional improvement for patients with knee OA. When BMAC was compared with other intra-articular injection options, distinct differences surpassing the MCID were not evident. Further research is deemed necessary to investigate the role of BMAC in the treatment of knee OA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
876
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM), developed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), is a global, peer-reviewed, open access journal that combines the interests of researchers and clinical practitioners across orthopaedic sports medicine, arthroscopy, and knee arthroplasty. Topics include original research in the areas of: -Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, including surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopaedic sports injuries -Arthroscopic Surgery (Shoulder/Elbow/Wrist/Hip/Knee/Ankle/Foot) -Relevant translational research -Sports traumatology/epidemiology -Knee and shoulder arthroplasty The OJSM also publishes relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信