Cartilage lesion size and number of stromal vascular fraction (SVF) cells strongly influenced the SVF implantation outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis

Abstract

Purpose This study evaluated outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis following stromal vascular fraction implantation and assessed the associated prognostic factors. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 43 patients who underwent follow-up magnetic resonance imaging 12 months after stromal vascular fraction implantation for knee osteoarthritis. Pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale and measured at baseline and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up appointments. In addition, cartilage repair was evaluated based on the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue scoring system using the magnetic resonance imaging from the 12-month follow-up. Finally, we evaluated the effects of various factors on outcomes following stromal vascular fraction implantation. Results Compared to the baseline value, the mean visual analogue scale score significantly and progressively decreased until 12 months post-treatment (P < 0.05 for all, except n.s. between the 1 and 3-month follow-ups). The mean Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue score was 70.5 ± 11.1. Furthermore, the mean visual analogue scale and Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue scores significantly correlated 12 months postoperatively (P = 0.002). Additionally, the cartilage lesion size and the number of stromal vascular fraction cells significantly correlated with the 12-month visual analogue scale scores and the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue score. Multivariate analyses determined that the cartilage lesion size and the number of stromal vascular fraction cells had a high prognostic significance for unsatisfactory outcomes. Conclusion Stromal vascular fraction implantation improved pain and cartilage regeneration for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The cartilage lesion size and the number of stromal vascular fraction cells significantly influenced the postoperative outcomes. Thus, these findings may serve as a basis for preoperative surgical decisions. Level of evidence IV.

Hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, the stromal vascular fraction, or mesenchymal stem cells: which is the best candidate for treating knee osteoarthritis?

“…A high dose of SVF cells (50.10 6 SVF cells) showed better results than did low-dose SVF cells (25.10 6 SVF cells) 23 ; however, at a dose of 25.10 6 SVF cells, the WOMAC score and VAS and KOOS improved 24 . In a recent publication, confirmed that the cartilage lesion size and number of SVF cells strongly influence the clinical outcome of knee OA treatment 25 . The therapeutic effects of SVF can persist for the first 2 years in patients with knee OA grades 2-3, and the positive effects of the injection disappear in the third year 26 .…”

Analyzing the Clinical Potential of Stromal Vascular Fraction: A Comprehensive Literature Review

“…After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 84 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 16 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (Table 1) [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. The selected studies included prospective and/or retrospective case series, randomized controlled clinical trials, and reviews.…”

“…[34] In the field of orthopedics, SVF has been investigated for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). In a retrospective study by Kim et al [12] with 43 participants, SVF implantation was found to improve pain and cartilage regeneration in knee OA. Garza et al [15] reported improved pain scores and cartilage regeneration in patients with knee OA following SVF implantation, and both studies underscored the absence of complications.…”

Comparative Analysis of Stromal Vascular Fraction and Alternative Mechanisms in Bone Fracture Stimulation to Bridge the Gap between Nature and Technological Advancement: A Systematic Review

“…Through immune modulation, SVF, with its composition of immune cells, refines inflammatory responses, mitigating excessive inflammation and creating a favorable environment conducive to healing. SVF promotes angiogenesis, ensuring the formation of an integrated vascular network within the healing bone, which is crucial for the supply of essential nutrients and oxygen, and is crucial for optimal bone regeneration and pain reduction [23][24][25].…”

“…Comparative overview of various bone stimulation modalities[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26].…”