骨科循证指南。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Tobias Winkler, Stephan Oehme, Alexander Hildebrandt, Azzurra Paolucci, Lorenz Pichler
{"title":"骨科循证指南。","authors":"Tobias Winkler, Stephan Oehme, Alexander Hildebrandt, Azzurra Paolucci, Lorenz Pichler","doi":"10.1530/EOR-2025-0069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Orthobiologics (OBs) have seen a constant increase in the number of available therapies and their clinical applications. Existing therapies can be categorized into blood-based (e.g., platelet-rich plasma (PRP)) and tissue/cell-based (e.g. mesenchymal stromal cells) approaches. While the popularity of OBs continues to grow, their diverse natures create unique challenges for the establishment of evidence-based guidelines. PRP has been reported by meta-analyses to increase patient-reported outcomes for conditions such as knee osteoarthritis (KOA), lateral epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis. However, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included often exhibit a high risk of bias due to the heterogeneity in the PRP preparation protocols and accompanying measures as well as inconsistent trial quality. The development pipeline of cell/tissue-based therapies is typically longer and more cost-intensive than that of blood-based therapies. Nevertheless, several products have demonstrated clinical safety. While some RCTs and meta-analyses on the outcome of cell/tissue-based therapies exist, their number is considerably lower than that of blood-based therapies and they focus mainly on KOA, with limited evidence on other orthopedic indications. Orthopedic societies such as ESSKA and AAOS have taken on the challenge of developing guidelines for OBs by combining high-level synthesized evidence with expert consensus. Patient stratification strategies represent a promising key to unlocking the full potential of OBs and are currently being investigated in ongoing studies. Further efforts to establish guidelines for the use of OBs should focus on developing frameworks for clinical trials and their reporting, alongside standardized protocols for the preparation, application and accompanying measures of OB therapies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48598,"journal":{"name":"Efort Open Reviews","volume":"10 6","pages":"345-351"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12139597/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based guidelines on orthobiologics.\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Winkler, Stephan Oehme, Alexander Hildebrandt, Azzurra Paolucci, Lorenz Pichler\",\"doi\":\"10.1530/EOR-2025-0069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Orthobiologics (OBs) have seen a constant increase in the number of available therapies and their clinical applications. Existing therapies can be categorized into blood-based (e.g., platelet-rich plasma (PRP)) and tissue/cell-based (e.g. mesenchymal stromal cells) approaches. While the popularity of OBs continues to grow, their diverse natures create unique challenges for the establishment of evidence-based guidelines. PRP has been reported by meta-analyses to increase patient-reported outcomes for conditions such as knee osteoarthritis (KOA), lateral epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis. However, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included often exhibit a high risk of bias due to the heterogeneity in the PRP preparation protocols and accompanying measures as well as inconsistent trial quality. The development pipeline of cell/tissue-based therapies is typically longer and more cost-intensive than that of blood-based therapies. Nevertheless, several products have demonstrated clinical safety. While some RCTs and meta-analyses on the outcome of cell/tissue-based therapies exist, their number is considerably lower than that of blood-based therapies and they focus mainly on KOA, with limited evidence on other orthopedic indications. Orthopedic societies such as ESSKA and AAOS have taken on the challenge of developing guidelines for OBs by combining high-level synthesized evidence with expert consensus. Patient stratification strategies represent a promising key to unlocking the full potential of OBs and are currently being investigated in ongoing studies. Further efforts to establish guidelines for the use of OBs should focus on developing frameworks for clinical trials and their reporting, alongside standardized protocols for the preparation, application and accompanying measures of OB therapies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Efort Open Reviews\",\"volume\":\"10 6\",\"pages\":\"345-351\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12139597/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Efort Open Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-2025-0069\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Efort Open Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-2025-0069","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

骨科(OBs)在可用的治疗方法及其临床应用数量不断增加。现有的治疗方法可分为基于血液(例如,富血小板血浆(PRP))和基于组织/细胞(例如,间充质间质细胞)的方法。虽然OBs的受欢迎程度持续增长,但其多样性为建立循证指南带来了独特的挑战。荟萃分析报告了PRP可以增加膝关节骨关节炎(KOA)、外侧上髁炎和足底筋膜炎等患者报告的结果。然而,由于PRP制备方案和随附措施的异质性以及试验质量不一致,纳入的随机对照试验(rct)往往表现出较高的偏倚风险。基于细胞/组织的疗法的开发管道通常比基于血液的疗法更长,成本更高。尽管如此,一些产品已经证明了临床安全性。虽然存在一些基于细胞/组织的治疗结果的随机对照试验和荟萃分析,但它们的数量远远低于基于血液的治疗,而且它们主要集中在KOA上,其他骨科适应症的证据有限。诸如美国骨科学会(ESSKA)和美国骨科学会(AAOS)等骨科学会已经接受了挑战,通过将高水平的综合证据与专家共识相结合,为ob制定指南。患者分层策略是释放OBs全部潜力的一个有希望的关键,目前正在进行的研究中进行调查。建立OB使用指南的进一步努力应侧重于制定临床试验及其报告框架,以及OB治疗的准备、应用和伴随措施的标准化协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evidence-based guidelines on orthobiologics.

Evidence-based guidelines on orthobiologics.

Orthobiologics (OBs) have seen a constant increase in the number of available therapies and their clinical applications. Existing therapies can be categorized into blood-based (e.g., platelet-rich plasma (PRP)) and tissue/cell-based (e.g. mesenchymal stromal cells) approaches. While the popularity of OBs continues to grow, their diverse natures create unique challenges for the establishment of evidence-based guidelines. PRP has been reported by meta-analyses to increase patient-reported outcomes for conditions such as knee osteoarthritis (KOA), lateral epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis. However, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included often exhibit a high risk of bias due to the heterogeneity in the PRP preparation protocols and accompanying measures as well as inconsistent trial quality. The development pipeline of cell/tissue-based therapies is typically longer and more cost-intensive than that of blood-based therapies. Nevertheless, several products have demonstrated clinical safety. While some RCTs and meta-analyses on the outcome of cell/tissue-based therapies exist, their number is considerably lower than that of blood-based therapies and they focus mainly on KOA, with limited evidence on other orthopedic indications. Orthopedic societies such as ESSKA and AAOS have taken on the challenge of developing guidelines for OBs by combining high-level synthesized evidence with expert consensus. Patient stratification strategies represent a promising key to unlocking the full potential of OBs and are currently being investigated in ongoing studies. Further efforts to establish guidelines for the use of OBs should focus on developing frameworks for clinical trials and their reporting, alongside standardized protocols for the preparation, application and accompanying measures of OB therapies.

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
Efort Open Reviews
Efort Open Reviews Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: EFORT Open Reviews publishes high-quality instructional review articles across the whole field of orthopaedics and traumatology. Commissioned, peer-reviewed articles from international experts summarize current knowledge and practice in orthopaedics, with the aim of providing systematic coverage of the field. All articles undergo rigorous scientific editing to ensure the highest standards of accuracy and clarity. This continuously published online journal is fully open access and will provide integrated CME. It is an authoritative resource for educating trainees and supports practising orthopaedic surgeons in keeping informed about the latest clinical and scientific advances. One print issue containing a selection of papers from the journal will be published each year to coincide with the EFORT Annual Congress. EFORT Open Reviews is the official journal of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) and is published in partnership with The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信