https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3947-2569
Figures
Abstract
Background
Atherosclerosis and osteoarthritis are closely related. However, no high-quality studies have investigated the potential of micro-fragmented adipose tissue to treat patients with atherosclerosis accompanied by osteoarthritis.
Methods
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG DATA, and CQVIP were searched for potentially eligible studies published before October 13, 2022. Due to the statistical limitations of the existing relevant literature, it is not possible to make direct statistics on the patients with osteoarthritis accompanied by atherosclerosis treated by micro-fragmented adipose tissue. The primary outcome consisted of two parts: 1) Correlation between atherosclerosis and osteoarthritis; 2) Scores of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). And secondary outcomes were pain assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS), quality of life (QoL) (assessed using tools apart from the KOOS), and adverse events (AEs). Random meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 14.0.
Results
Nineteen studies were included. The metaanalysis evidenced a positive association between atherosclerosis and osteoarthritis (OR 1.17, CI 1.01–1.36). The mean absolute difference in KOOS subscale scores between pre- and post-treatment (mean with 95% confidence interval [CI]) was 19.65 (13.66, 25.63), 14.20 (4.64, 23.76), 19.95 (13.02, 26.89), 25.23 (14.80, 35.66), and 26.01 (13.68, 38.35) for pain, symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), sports/recreation, and quality-of-life (QOL), respectively. The mean differences in VAS, resting VAS, activity VAS, and NRS between pre- and post-treatment was -8.24 (-10.66, —5.82), -3.61 (-4.49, -2.72), -4.17 (-4.89, -3.44), and -2.17 (-4.06, and -0.28), respectively. The mean difference in score of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), EQ-5D, and University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) between pre- and post-treatment was -24.81 (-40.80, -8.82), 0.07 (0.02, 0.12), and 0.30 (-0.42, 1.02), respectively. The mean difference in Tegner score and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score between pre- and post-treatment was 0.67 (-0.62, 1.97) and 13.70 (6.35, 21.04), respectively. The use of micro-fragmented adipose tissue was associated with risk of bruising, bleeding, hematoma, drainage, infection, soreness, swelling, pain, and stiffness in harvest and injection sites.
Conclusion
Atherosclerosis and osteoarthritis share common risk factors and comorbidity. And the use of micro-fragmented adipose tissue may benefit for improving symptoms of knee osteoarthritis accompanied by atherosclerosis although may lead to some mild adverse events. Randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are necessary for further evaluation because many limitations of this meta-analysis cannot be ignored.
Citation: Li W, Guo H, Wang C, Zhang Y, Wang J (2023) Autologous micro-fragmented adipose tissue in the treatment of atherosclerosis patients with knee osteoarthritis in geriatric population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 18(8): e0289610. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289610
Editor: Victor Afamefuna Egwuonwu, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, NIGERIA
Received: April 16, 2023; Accepted: July 22, 2023; Published: August 31, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This study was supported in the form of funding by Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. ZR2019PH026 and ZR2023MH145) awarded to JW, China University Industry-University-Research Innovation Fund (Grant No. 2023HT050) awarded to JW, Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. ZR2019PH026) awarded to YZ, and Weifang City Science and Technology Development Plan Project Fund (Grant No. 2020YX014) awarded to WL.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal disorders, with a significant impact on one’s ability to carry out daily activities (ADL) [1]. Knee OA is characterized by articular cartilage loss, bone remodeling, and periarticular muscle weakness, resulting in knee joint pain, swelling, deformity, and instability [2, 3]. Over half of the persons suffering from symptomatic knee OA experience significant disabilities daily [4]. It cannot be denied that knee OA has risen to become the leading cause of disability among the elderly [5]. In United States of America Studies, 38% to 47% of elderly aged more than 60 years being affected by knee OA [6, 7]. In addition, according to recent studies, 18% of elderly males and 27% of elderly females were estimated to have KOA, and this ratio is estimated to increase over the coming decades [8]. Therefore, it is crucial to early use effective therapies to treat knee OA.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide, and atherosclerosis is the primary pathophysiological substrate of the disease process. Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause of joint disease worldwide and its incidence is increasing as the population ages, affecting one in five people worldwide. As two very common diseases, their frequent co-existence is not surprising and increases the likelihood that they will interact with each other. Not surprisingly, OA has been identified as a credible risk factor for non-classical CVD. The association between osteoarthritis and cardiovascular disease is complex, difficult to direct, and stems from a common mechanism in the origin of chronic low-grade inflammation, compounded risk factors, and lifestyle.The prevalence of these two diseases in the general population is strongly related to age. For osteoarthritis, the prevalence increases in people over the age of 40. However, the increase in prevalence was different between the sexes. After the age of menopause, prevalence increases twice as fast in women as in men. Similar sex-specific differences were seen in atherosclerotic related deaths. The leading cause of death in men after the age of 35 is associated with atherosclerosis, while the number of atherosclerotic deaths in women begins to increase mainly after the age of menopause and becomes the leading cause of death after the age of 60. In old age, women have an even higher risk of death from atherosclerosis than men. In addition to the common risk factors for atherosclerosis and OA such as age and BMI, systematic reviews show that typical risk factors for atherosclerosis are most likely also risk factors for OA, such as high blood pressure for OA of the knee and high cholesterol levels for OA of the knee.
The primary goals of treatment for knee OA are to relieve pain and inflammation, reducing stiffness, optimizing mobility, function, and range of motion, and improving quality of life (QoL) [3, 9]. Currently, non-surgical and surgical therapies are available for the treatment of knee OA [10]. Non-surgical therapies include physical therapy, oral medicines, and intra-articular injections of steroids, hyaluronic acid, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP); nevertheless, these are only capable of providing limited therapeutic benefits, with an effect that is frequently not totally satisfactory and even decreasing over time, and varies between patients [11–13]. For more advanced diseases, joint-preserving and joint-replacing surgeries can be considered [3, 9]. As the ultimate therapeutic option for knee OA, primary and revision total knee arthroplasties (TKA) carry a non-negligible risk of failure and the need for later revision arthroplasty, especially in younger patients [14]. Therefore, it is imperative to find new effective treatment options for knee OA in order to delay or prevent invasive surgery [15].
Recently, the use of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) has been introduced as an attractive therapeutic option for knee OA due to their immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and paracrine properties [16, 17]. Bone marrow and adipose tissue were considered as the most common sources of MSCs [18], and adipose tissue-derived MSCs have similar properties to bone marrow-derived MSCs [19]; however, adipose-derived MSCs are easier to collect for clinical applications and have a higher isolation rate than bone marrow-derived MSCs [19–21]. Furthermore, micro-fragmented adipose tissue (MFAT) has been described as one of the smartest and most straightforward ways to employ adipose tissue in regenerative techniques in a variety of clinical applications [22, 23]. Specifically, MFAT contains MSCs that originate from the adipose blood vessels as pericytes and are released and primed during the extraction process through sheer stress and microfiltration of the adipose tissue [24, 25]. MFAT would be beneficial in providing an optimal biological environment for healing because its advantages in providing a high number of cells and growth factors without expansion or enzymatic treatment, thus preserving the integrity of cells and tissue microarchitecture [26]. To date, several studies have shown promising results when using autologous MFAT injection to treat knee OA [27, 28]. In animal experiments, it was found that MFAT produced by Lipogems achieved the best cartilage repair effect in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis with enzymatic digestion or cell expansion [29]. Zeira showed that MFAT injection in 130 dogs with spontaneous osteoarthritis is safe, feasible, and beneficial [30]. In clinical treatments, Russo evaluated the 1-year safety and outcome of a single intra-articular injection of autologous microfragment adipose tissue in 30 patients with knee osteoarthritis. An overall median improvement of 20 points was observed in IKDC subjective and total KOOS, and higher success rates were found in VAS pain and Tegner Lysholm knee joints, of which 22 patients maintained good outcomes at follow-up 3 years later with no associated complications or clinical deterioration documented [31, 32]. And another study showed significant improvements in pain, quality of life, and function for at least 12 months in patients with refractory severe (grade 3 or 4) knee osteoarthritis [33]. A multi-centric, international study show that seventy-five patients, 120 primary treatments, with KL grade 2 to 4 knee OA treated with a single MFAT injection. Patients with KL grade 2 disease had the best results in KOOS—Pain. Including advanced KL grade 3 and 4 osteoarthritis patients, significant functional and quality of life success was seen in 106/120 treatments at all follow-up time points. Fourteen treatments failed prior to the study endpoint [34]. In addition, a number of literature studies have found that MFAT has a good effect on knee/hip osteochondral injury and knee/hip osteoarthritis [35, 36]. And the clinical efficacy is better than repeated doses of leucocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma plus hyaluronic acid [37].
Still, to date, no high-level studies have comprehensively investigated the therapeutic efficacy and safety of autologous MFAT in the treatment of knee OA. Therefore, we conducted the current meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of autologous MFAT for the treatment of knee OA, with the aim to help increase the focus on this strategy for performing additional studies to improve patient prognosis.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Literature search
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines [38, 39]. The study was designed based on the PICOS principle [40]. Two investigators independently searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG DATA, and CQVIP for potentially eligible studies published before October 13, 2022, using the medical subject heading (MeSH) terms of ‘Osteoarthritis’, ‘Osteoarthritis, Knee’, and ‘Autologous Micro-fragmented Fat Tissue’ as well as relevant analogs. The retrieved records were screened according to the eligibility criteria. The detailed search strategies of target databases are summarized in S1 Table. Any discrepancies between the two investigators were resolved by discussion until a consensus was reached. Due to the statistical limitations of the existing relevant literature, it is not possible to make statistics on the patients with OA accompanied by AT treated by MFAT. So we made the primary outcome consist of two parts: 1) Correlation between atherosclerosis and osteoarthritis; 2) Scores of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).
2.2. Eligibility criteria
The inclusion criteria were as follow: (1) population: knee OA, (2) intervention: surgery combined with autologous MFAI, (3) comparison: not specifically defined, (4) outcomes: the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), pain, quality of life (QoL) (assessed using tools apart from the KOOS), and adverse events (AEs), and (5) full texts published in English and Chinese.
2.3. Exclusion criteria
The exclusion criteria were (1) in vitro study, (2) animal experiment, or (3) studies with ineligible designs, such as meta-analysis, review, case report, commentary, letter to the editor, or conference abstract.
2.4. Data extraction and synthesis
Data extraction was conducted by two investigators. The extracted data included study characteristics (authors, year of publication, country where the study was performed, and study design), patient characteristics (sex, sample size, and knee OA degree), intervention characteristics (procedure, donor site for adipose tissue, and device), and outcome data. The primary outcome was the KOOS, which includes five subscales: pain, symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), sports/recreation, and QoL. The continuous variables in the form of mean ± standard deviation (SD) at the last follow-up were extracted. The secondary outcomes were pain assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS), QoL (assessed using tools apart from the KOOS), and AEs. Disagreements between the two investigators were resolved by discussion until reaching a consensus.
2.5. Quality of the evidence
The level of evidence of all studies was assessed independently by two investigators according to the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) [41]. The evaluation is based on (1) a clearly stated aim, (2) the inclusion of consecutive patients, (3) a prospective collection of data, (4) appropriate endpoints for the study aim, (5) unbiased assessment of the study endpoint, (6) follow-up period appropriate for the study aim, (7) <5% loss to follow-up, and (8) prospective calculation of the sample size. For comparative studies, additional criteria were available: (9) adequate control group, (10) contemporary groups, (11) baseline equivalence of the groups, and (12) adequate statistical analyses. Discrepancies between the two investigators were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached.
2.6. Statistical analysis
For continuous variables, the changing value between pre- and post-treatment was used for meta-analysis, and estimate was expressed using mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous variable, the number of event and total sample size were used for meta-analysis, and estimate was expressed using rate and 95% CI. Statistical heterogeneity between the included studies was evaluated using Cochrane Q and Higgins’ I2. Statistical heterogeneity was deemed as significant if I2>50% and P<0.1 [42]. Nevertheless, the random-effects model was used for meta-analysis because it is not rational to ignore the variations between studies in the real settings [43, 44]. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the subscales of tools. The possible publication bias was not assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s test because the numbers of included studies were <10 in all analyses, in which case the funnel plots and Egger’s test could yield misleading results [45]. Two-sided P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA 14.0.
3. Results
3.1. Study selection
S1 Fig presents the study retrieval and selection process. The initial search identified 207 records, but 102 duplicates and 27 records marked as ineligible by automation tools were excluded before the screening. Then, 78 records were screened, and 59 records were excluded. Nineteen reports were sought for retrieval for eligibility evaluation. Five studies were excluded due to ineligible intervention (n = 1), duplicate studies (n = 2), and ineligible outcomes (n = 2). Finally, fourteen studies [27, 46–58] were included for meta-analysis to investigate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of autologous MFAT for the treatment of knee OA. And five studies [59–63] were included for meta-analysis to explore the similarity and correlation between the comorbidity of OA and AS.
3.2. Basic characteristics and quality of the included studies
There were eleven prospective studies [27, 46, 48, 49, 52–58] and eight retrospective studies [47, 50, 51, 59–63]. Other basic characteristics of the fourteen included studies to investigate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of autologous MFAT for the treatment of knee OA can be found in Table 1. And the basic characteristics of the five included studies to explore the similarity and correlation between the comorbidity of OA and AS can be found in Table 2.
Based on the MINORS tool, six studies scored 10 points [47, 51, 57, 59–63], three studies scored 11 points [48, 49, 52], six studies scored 12 points [27, 53–55], two studies scored 13 points [46, 50], and two studies scored 15 points [56, 58]. The detailed information regarding the level of evidence is summarized in S2 Table.
3.3. Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score
The mean absolute differences in KOOS subscale scores between pre- and post-treatment were 19.65 (13.66, 25.63), 14.20 (4.64, 23.76), 19.95 (13.02, 26.89), 25.23 (14.80, 35.66), and 26.01 (13.68, 38.35) for pain, symptoms, ADL, sports/recreation, and QOL, respectively. All pooled results are depicted in Fig 1. In addition, the results of individual studies which were included in the meta-analysis of KOOS subscale scores are displayed in S2 Fig.
ADL, activities of daily living; QoL, quality of life; CI, confidence interval.
3.4. Pain
The mean differences in pain scores between pre- and post-treatment were -8.24 (-10.66, -5.82), -3.61 (-4.49, -2.72), -4.17 (-4.89, -3.44), and -2.17 (-4.06, -0.28) for VAS, resting VAS, activity VAS, and NRS, respectively. The pooled results are depicted in Fig 2.
VAS, visual analog scale; NRS, numerical rating scale; CI, confidence interval; DL, Dersimonian-Larid.
3.5. Quality of life
The mean difference in QoL between pre- and post-treatment was -24.81 (-40.80, -8.82), 0.07 (0.02, 0.12), and 0.30 (-0.42, 1.02) for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), EQ-5D, and University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), respectively. The pooled results are depicted in S3 Fig.
3.6. Adverse events
The use of MFAT was associated with the risk of bruising (12%), bleeding (5%), hematoma (15%), drainage (5%), infection (5%), soreness (50%), swelling (38%), pain (47%), and stiffness (55%) in harvest and injection sites. The pooled results are depicted in S4 Fig.
3.7. Tegner and IKDC
The mean difference in Tegner scoring system and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) between pre- and post-treatment was 0.67 (-062, 1.97) and 13.70 (6.35, 21.04), respectively. The pooled results are depicted in S5 Fig.
3.8. Outcomes that could not be pooled
S6 Fig presents those outcomes that could not be pooled for meta-analysis. As shown in S6 Fig, the use of MFAT could be significantly associated with changes in OKS and HSS but not EQoL and dGEMRIC index.
3.9. Osteoarthritis and atherosclerosis
The metaanalysis evidenced a positive association between AT and OA (OR 1.17, CI 1.01–1.36). The pooled results are depicted in Fig 3.
OA, osteoarthritis; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; H, hips; K, knees; F, female; M, male.
4. Discussion
Both myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke are most often caused by atherosclerosis. To date, three systematic reviews have been published on the increased risk of OA and CVD [64–66]. The first systematic review by Hall et al. [64] examined an increased risk of cardiovascular disease given the presence of OA, based on searches prior to November 2014. They included 15 studies. The meta-analysis showed that patients with OA were more likely to develop heart failure (relative risk [RR] 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.25–3.49), ischemic heart disease (RR: 1.78; 95% CI 1.18 to 2.69), or CVD (RR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.53), but the risk of stroke was not high (RR: 1; 95% CI 0.13–7.87), and the results of the latter showed great heterogeneity. All studies included in the meta-analysis were longitudinal studies and measured confounding factors were taken into account. The second systematic review by Wang et al. [65], retrieved May 2016, also included 15 studies. In this review, cardiovascular disease risk from 10 prospective studies and 5 retrospective studies are presented. Overall, there was an increased risk of CVD for OA in prospective studies (RR 1.24; 95 CI 1.12 to 1.37), but not in retrospective studies (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.95 ~ 1.38). Veronese et al. [66] reported the risk of cardiovascular death due to the presence of any joint osteoarthritis from studies published prior to November 2015, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.21 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.34) and a high degree of homogeneity in results. In short, most studies show cross-sectional and longitudinal associations, although not for all joints and all measures of atherosclerosis. Evidence from most studies suggests that atherosclerosis is associated with hand and knee osteoarthritis, but never hip osteoarthritis. Moreover, in studies analyzing gender differences, these associations were stronger in women than in men.
MFAT combined with surgery may be a promising therapeutic strategy for the early management of knee OA, but strong evidence for supporting the clinical application of MFAT is lacking. Therefore, the present meta-analysis was conducted to comprehensively investigate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of autologous MFAT for the treatment of knee OA. The pooled results reveal that MFAT may benefit to improve symptoms of knee OA although may also lead to some mild adverse events.
The present meta-analysis showed that post-operative application of MFAT significantly improve the five subscale -scores of the KOOS, pain scores, QoL scores, and Tegner score. It is consistent with the fact that all included studies reported some degree of improvements after the use of MFAT in their patients with knee OA [27, 46–50, 51–58]. Still, because most included studies have positive results, a publication bias is possible but could not be examined in the present study because of the insufficient number of included studies for individual analysis [45]. Nevertheless, other studies that were not eligible for the present meta-analysis support the results of the present meta-analysis, suggesting that the use of MFAT may be promising for the treatment of knee OA [67, 68]. MFAT also showed benefits in other indications, such as menopausal vaginal atrophy, perianal fistula repair, and diabetic foot [48, 69–71].
Conventional treatments of knee OA is corticosteroid injection, but an inflammatory flare occurs in 2%-25% of the cases [7]. In addition, hyaluronic acid injection carries a risk of flares and granulomatous inflammation [72]. In the present meta-analysis, the meta-analysis of AEs reveals that the use of MFAT may lead to the occurrence of bruising, bleeding, hematoma, drainage, infection, soreness, pain, and stiffness; however, all adverse events were mild and relieved in the short term without specific treatment. In addition, whether the safety profile of MFAT is better than with other therapies (e.g., platelet-rich plasma) remains to be investigated in comparative trials.
Five studies [49–52, 58] included outcomes that could not be pooled in the present meta-analysis. These studies showed improvements in Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score (HSS), but not in the Emory Quality of Life (EQoL) score and delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage (dGEMRIC) index. Of course, different assessment tools have different degrees of subjectivity/objectivity and measure different outcomes. Therefore, it might highlight the need to use multiple assessment tools and to use similar tools among studies to improve the comparability of the results.
This meta-analysis has limitations. The number of included studies was relatively small because the autologous MFAT strategy is relatively novel. Therefore, our findings should be interpreted with caution due to limited statistical power. All included studies used the same technique for harvest; however, there are rules or at least recommendations for the conduction of clinical and/or surgical trials in OA, which were not followed by the studies included in this systematic revie and meta-analysis. Indeed, the MINORS scores of the included studies were moderate. Significant heterogeneity was observed in several analyses, which would inevitably compromise the robustness and reliability of the pooled results. However, such heterogeneity was inevitable considering the differences among trials regarding severity of knee OA, donor sites for adipose tissue, techniques of intra-articular injection, and follow-up duration. We cannot perform subgroup analysis to explore which factors may contribute to significant heterogeneity due to limited number of eligible studies. Therefore, the results must be interpreted with caution. At the same time, most studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis were retrospective studies, which had lower statistical power for assessing efficacy of a certain. Therefore, more prospective comparative or even randomized controlled trials with high-quality and large sample size are needed. Furthermore, these eligible studies did not assess changes in joint range of motion, a finding that is important for knee OA. Therefore, future studies should consider this result. Finally, there are many therapeutic options for the treatment of knee OA, such as sodium hyaluronate injection. However, it was impossible to quantitatively compared the efficacy and safety of intra-articular MFAT versus other therapeutic options due to lack of eligible studies. So, we recommend future studies to directly compared intra-articular MFAT to other therapeutic options.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, based on the currently available limited evidence, there is a positive association between atherosclerosis and osteoarthritis; and the use of micro-fragmented adipose tissue may benefit for improving symptoms of knee osteoarthritis accompanied by atherosclerosis although may lead to some mild adverse events. However, more studies are necessary for further validating our findings because some limitations such as limited number of eligible studies, significant statistical heterogeneity, and potential publication bias may significantly compromise the reliability of the pooled results.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Flow diagram of searching and selecting studies.
CNKI, China National Knowledge Infrastructure.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289610.s002
(TIF)
S2 Fig. Subgroup analysis of KOOS subscale scores.
KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; ADL, activities of daily living; QoL, quality of life; CI, confidence interval.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289610.s003
(TIF)
S3 Fig. Forest plot of quality of life (QOL).
WOMAC, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; EQ-5D, European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level; UCLA, University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA); CI, confidence interval; DL, Dersimonian-Larid.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289610.s004
(TIF)
S4 Fig. Forest plot of adverse events (AEs).
ES, effect size; CI, confidence interval.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289610.s005
(TIF)
S5 Fig. Forest plot of Tegner scoring system and IKDC. IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; CI, confidence interval; DL, Dersimonian-Larid.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289610.s006
(TIF)
S6 Fig. Forest plot of the outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed.
OKS, Oxford Knee Score; HSS, Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score; EQoL, Emory Quality of Life; dGEMRIC, delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage; CI, confidence interval; DL, Dersimonian-Larid.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289610.s007
(TIF)
S1 Table. Quality assessment of the included studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289610.s008
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Quality assessment of the included studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289610.s009
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Brosseau L, Taki J, Desjardins B, Thevenot O, Fransen M, Wells GA, et al. The Ottawa panel clinical practice guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis. Part one: introduction, and mind-body exercise programs. Clinical rehabilitation (2017) 31(5):582–95. pmid:28183188
- 2. Gelber AC. In the clinic. Osteoarthritis. Ann Intern Med (2014) 161(1):ITC1-16. Epub 2014/07/01. pmid:24979462.
- 3. Hochberg MC, Altman RD, April KT, Benkhalti M, Guyatt G, McGowan J, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2012 recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) (2012) 64(4):465–74. Epub 2012/05/09. pmid:22563589.
- 4. Deshpande BR, Katz JN, Solomon DH, Yelin EH, Hunter DJ, Messier SP, et al. Number of Persons With Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis in the US: Impact of Race and Ethnicity, Age, Sex, and Obesity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) (2016) 68(12):1743–50. Epub 2016/11/05. pmid:27014966; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5319385.
- 5. Wang S-Y, Olson-Kellogg B, Shamliyan TA, Choi J-Y, Ramakrishnan R, Kane RL. Physical therapy interventions for knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Annals of internal medicine (2012) 157(9):632–44. pmid:23128863
- 6. Zhang Y, Jordan JM. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Clin Geriatr Med (2010) 26(3):355–69. Epub 2010/08/12. pmid:20699159; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2920533.
- 7. Levy DM, Petersen KA, Scalley Vaught M, Christian DR, Cole BJ. Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: Corticosteroids, Viscosupplementation, Platelet-Rich Plasma, and Autologous Stem Cells. Arthroscopy (2018) 34(5):1730–43. Epub 2018/04/17. pmid:29656808.
- 8. Wu H, Yao R, Wu J, Wen G, Wang Y. Does kinesio taping plus exercise improve pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis?: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Physiol (2022) 13:961264. Epub 2022/09/27. pmid:36160871; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9500481.
- 9. Fernandes L, Hagen KB, Bijlsma JW, Andreassen O, Christensen P, Conaghan PG, et al. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis (2013) 72(7):1125–35. Epub 2013/04/19. pmid:23595142.
- 10. Jevsevar DS. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: evidence-based guideline. JAAOS-Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2013) 21(9):571–6.
- 11. Boffa A, Salerno M, Merli G, De Girolamo L, Laver L, Magalon J, et al. Platelet-rich plasma injections induce disease-modifying effects in the treatment of osteoarthritis in animal models. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2021) 29(12):4100–21. Epub 2021/08/04. pmid:34341845.
- 12. Crawford DC, Miller LE, Block JE. Conservative management of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a flawed strategy? Orthop Rev (Pavia) (2013) 5(1):e2. Epub 2013/05/25. pmid:23705060; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3662262.
- 13. Kon E, Filardo G, Drobnic M, Madry H, Jelic M, van Dijk N, et al. Non-surgical management of early knee osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2012) 20(3):436–49. Epub 2011/11/01. pmid:22037809.
- 14. Evans JT, Walker RW, Evans JP, Blom AW, Sayers A, Whitehouse MR. How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet (2019) 393(10172):655–63. Epub 2019/02/21. pmid:30782341; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6381229.
- 15. Filardo G, Kon E, Longo UG, Madry H, Marchettini P, Marmotti A, et al. Non-surgical treatments for the management of early osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2016) 24(6):1775–85. Epub 2016/04/05. pmid:27043347.
- 16. Caplan AI. Review: mesenchymal stem cells: cell-based reconstructive therapy in orthopedics. Tissue Eng (2005) 11(7–8):1198–211. Epub 2005/09/08. pmid:16144456.
- 17. Dimarino AM, Caplan AI, Bonfield TL. Mesenchymal stem cells in tissue repair. Front Immunol (2013) 4:201. Epub 2013/09/13. pmid:24027567; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3761350.
- 18. Muthu S, Mir AA, Kumar R, Yadav V, Jeyaraman M, Khanna M. What is the clinically significant ideal mesenchymal stromal cell count in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee?—Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Orthop Trauma (2022) 25:101744. Epub 2022/01/11. pmid:35004170; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8719017.
- 19. Pers Y-M, Rackwitz L, Ferreira R, Pullig O, Delfour C, Barry F, et al. Adipose Mesenchymal Stromal Cell-Based Therapy for Severe Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Phase I Dose-Escalation Trial. Stem Cells Translational Medicine (2016) 5(7):847–56. pmid:27217345
- 20. Gimble J, Guilak F. Adipose-derived adult stem cells: isolation, characterization, and differentiation potential. Cytotherapy (2003) 5(5):362–9. Epub 2003/10/28. pmid:14578098.
- 21. Perdisa F, Gostyńska N, Roffi A, Filardo G, Marcacci M, Kon E. Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Treatment of Articular Cartilage: A Systematic Review on Preclinical and Clinical Evidence. Stem Cells Int (2015) 2015:597652. Epub 2015/08/05. pmid:26240572; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4512635.
- 22. Natali S, Screpis D, Farinelli L, Iacono V, Vacca V, Gigante A, et al. The use of intra-articular injection of autologous micro-fragmented adipose tissue as pain treatment for ankle osteoarthritis: a prospective not randomized clinical study. Int Orthop (2021) 45(9):2239–44. Epub 2021/06/19. pmid:34142184.
- 23. Malanga GA, Bemanian S. Microfragmented adipose injections in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. J Clin Orthop Trauma (2019) 10(1):46–8. Epub 2019/02/02. pmid:30705531; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6349576.
- 24. Ahmed TA, Shousha WG, Abdo SM, Mohamed IK, El-Badri N. Human Adipose-Derived Pericytes: Biological Characterization and Reprogramming into Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Cell Physiol Biochem (2020) 54(2):271–86. Epub 2020/04/02. pmid:32233339.
- 25. Tremolada C, Colombo V, Ventura C. Adipose Tissue and Mesenchymal Stem Cells: State of the Art and Lipogems(R) Technology Development. Curr Stem Cell Rep (2016) 2:304–12. Epub 2016/08/23. pmid:27547712; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4972861.
- 26. Murphy MB, Moncivais K, Caplan AI. Mesenchymal stem cells: environmentally responsive therapeutics for regenerative medicine. Exp Mol Med (2013) 45:e54. Epub 2013/11/16. pmid:24232253; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3849579.
- 27. Hudetz D, Boric I, Rod E, Jelec Z, Kunovac B, Polasek O, et al. Early results of intra-articular micro-fragmented lipoaspirate treatment in patients with late stages knee osteoarthritis: a prospective study. Croatian Medical Journal (2019) 60(3):227–36. WOS:000477821000006. pmid:31187950
- 28. Schiavone Panni A, Vasso M, Braile A, Toro G, De Cicco A, Viggiano D, et al. Preliminary results of autologous adipose-derived stem cells in early knee osteoarthritis: identification of a subpopulation with greater response. Int Orthop (2019) 43(1):7–13. Epub 2018/10/04. pmid:30280218.
- 29. Bo Y, Zhang X, Li X. Exosomes Derived from Mesenchymal Stem Cells. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2014, 15(3):4142–4157. pmid:24608926
- 30. Tonnard P, Departmentofbasicmedicalsciences G U, Verpaele A, et al. Nanofat grafting: Basic research and clinical applications. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2013(132–4). pmid:23783059.
- 31. Oberbauer E, Steffenhagen C, Wurzer C, et al. Enzymatic and non-enzymatic isolation systems for adipose tissue-derived cells: current state of the art. Cell regeneration (London, England), 4:7. pmid:26435835.
- 32. Vinet-Jones H, Fdarr K. Clinical use of autologous micro-fragmented fat progressively restores pain and function in shoulder osteoarthritis. Regenerative Medicine, 2020, 15(6). pmid:33275470.
- 33. Kronsteiner B, Wolbank S, Peterbauer A, et al. Human mesenchymal stem cells from adipose tissue and amnion influence T-cells depending on stimulation method and presence of other immune cells. Stem Cells & Development, 2011, 20(12):2115–26. pmid:21381973.
- 34. Wolbank S, Peterbauer A, Fahrner M, et al. Dose-dependent immunomodulatory effect of human stem cells from amniotic membrane: a comparison with human mesenchymal stem cells from adipose tissue. Tissue Engineering Part A, 2007, 13(6):1173–1183. pmid:17518752.
- 35. Kronsteiner B, Peterbauer-Scherb A, Grillari-Voglauer R, et al. Human mesenchymal stem cells and renal tubular epithelial cells differentially influence monocyte-derived dendritic cell differentiation and maturation. Cellular Immunology, 2011, 267(1):30-38. pmid:21145536.
- 36. Ferro Federico, Spelat Renza, Falini Giuseppe, Gallelli Annarita, et al. Adipose Tissue-Derived Stem Cell in Vitro Differentiation in a Three-Dimensional Dental Bud Structure. The American Journal of Pathology, 2011. pmid:21514442.
- 37. C J, Kirkpatrick , and, et al. Comparative effects of trypsin, collagenase and mechanical harvesting on cell membrane lipids studied in monolayer-cultured endothelial cells and a green monkey kidney cell line. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—Molecular Cell Research, 1985, 846(1):120–126. pmid:2990575.
- 38. Prisma 2020. J Clin Epidemiol (2021) 134:A5–A6. Epub 2021/05/22. pmid:34016443.
- 39. Swartz MK. PRISMA 2020 An Update. J Pediatr Health Care (2021) 35(4):351. Epub 2021/07/11. pmid:34243844.
- 40. Aslam S, Emmanuel P. Formulating a researchable question: A critical step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian journal of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS (2010) 31(1):47–50. pmid:21808439; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3140151.
- 41. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg (2003) 73(9):712–6. Epub 2003/09/06. pmid:12956787.
- 42. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med (2002) 21(11):1539–58. pmid:12111919.
- 43. Kanters S. Fixed- and Random-Effects Models. Methods Mol Biol (2022) 2345:41–65. Epub 2021/09/23. pmid:34550583.
- 44. DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials (2007) 28(2):105–14. Epub 2006/06/30. pmid:16807131.
- 45. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj (2011) 343:d5928. pmid:22008217; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3196245.
- 46.
Li GL. The treatment of osteoarthritis with autologous micro-fragmented adipose tissue [Master degree]: Qingdao University (2017).
- 47. Russo A, Condello V, Madonna V, Guerriero M, Zorzi C. Autologous and micro-fragmented adipose tissue for the treatment of diffuse degenerative knee osteoarthritis. Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics (2017) 4(1). pmid:28975547
- 48. Cattaneo G, De Caro A, Napoli F, Chiapale D, Trada P, Camera A. Micro-fragmented adipose tissue injection associated with arthroscopic procedures in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. BMC musculoskeletal disorders (2018) 19(1):176. Epub 2018/06/01. pmid:29848328; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5977739.
- 49. Liang JX, Chen L, Dai YY, Pao LY, Du S. Observation on the clinical effect of Lipogems autologous fat microfragments in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Strait Pharmaceutical Journal (2018) (8):166–7.
- 50. Borić I, Hudetz D, Rod E, Jeleč Ž, Vrdoljak T, Skelin A, et al. A 24-month follow-up study of the effect of intra-articular injection of autologous microfragmented fat tissue on proteoglycan synthesis in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Genes (2019) 10(12). PubMed Central PMCID: PMCGuerbet(France). pmid:31861180
- 51. Mautner K, Bowers R, Easley K, Fausel Z, Robinson R. Functional Outcomes Following Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Versus Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections for Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis. Stem Cells Translational Medicine (2019) 8(11):1149–56. pmid:31328447
- 52. Heidari N, Noorani A, Slevin M, Cullen A, Stark L, Olgiati S, et al. Patient-Centered Outcomes of Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Treatments of Knee Osteoarthritis: An Observational, Intention-to-Treat Study at Twelve Months. Stem Cells International (2020) 2020. pmid:32831853
- 53. Malanga GA, Chirichella PS, Hogaboom NS, Capella T. Clinical evaluation of micro-fragmented adipose tissue as a treatment option for patients with meniscus tears with osteoarthritis: a prospective pilot study. International orthopaedics (2020). CN-33026537.
- 54. Genechten WV, Vuylsteke K, Martinez PR, Swinnen L, Sas K, Verdonk P. Autologous micro-fragmented adipose tissue (Mfat) to treat symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: Early outcomes of a consecutive case series. Journal of Clinical Medicine (2021) 10(11). pmid:34064010
- 55. Baria M, Pedroza A, Kaeding C, Durgam S, Duerr R, Flanigan D, et al. Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Microfragmented Adipose Tissue for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (2022) 10(9). pmid:36147791
- 56. Gobbi A, Dallo I, D’Ambrosi R. Autologous microfragmented adipose tissue and leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid show comparable clinical outcomes for symptomatic early knee osteoarthritis over a two-year follow-up period: a prospective randomized clinical trial. European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology: orthopedie traumatologie (2022). CN-02453434.
- 57. Screpis D, Natali S, Farinelli L, Piovan G, Iacono V, de Girolamo L, et al. Autologous Microfragmented Adipose Tissue for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: Real‐World Data at Two Years Follow‐Up. Journal of Clinical Medicine (2022) 11(5). pmid:35268359
- 58. Zaffagnini S, Andriolo L, Boffa A, Poggi A, Cenacchi A, Busacca M, et al. Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial at 2-Year Follow-up. American journal of sports medicine (2022):2881‐92. CN-02453553.
- 59. Jonsson H, Helgadottir GP, Aspelund T, Eiriksdottir G, Sigurdsson S, Siggeirsdottir K, et al. The presence of total knee or hip replacements due to osteoarthritis enhances the positive association between hand osteoarthritis and atherosclerosis in women: the AGES-Reykjavik study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Jun;70(6):1087–90. Epub 2011 Mar 1. PMCID: PMC3196360. pmid:21367759
- 60. Hoeven TA, Kavousi M, Clockaerts S, Kerkhof HJ, van Meurs JB, Franco O, et al. Association of atherosclerosis with presence and progression of osteoarthritis: the Rotterdam Study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 May;72(5):646–51. Epub 2012 May 6. pmid:22563029.
- 61. Hoeven TA, Kavousi M, Ikram MA, van Meurs JB, Bindels PJ, Hofman A, et al. Markers of atherosclerosis in relation to presence and progression of knee osteoarthritis: a population-based cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015 Sep;54(9):1692–8. Epub 2015 May 6. pmid:25953699.
- 62. Gielis WP, Welsing PMJ, van Spil WE, Runhaar J, Weinans H, de Jong PA. A sex-specific association between incident radiographic osteoarthritis of hip or knee and incident peripheral arterial calcifications: 8-year prospective data from Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017 Nov;25(11):1814–1821. Epub 2017 Jul 28. pmid:28757188.
- 63. Hussain SM, Wang Y, Shaw JE, Magliano DJ, Wong TY, Wluka AE, et al. Retinal arteriolar narrowing and incidence of knee replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 Apr;23(4):589–93. Epub 2015 Jan 14. pmid:25596324.
- 64. Hall AJ, Stubbs B, Mamas MA, Myint PK, Smith TO. Association between osteoarthritis and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2016;23(9):938–46. pmid:26464295
- 65. Wang H, Bai J, He B, Hu X, Liu D. Osteoarthritis and the risk of cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Sci Rep 2016;6:39672. pmid:28004796
- 66. Veronese N, Cereda E, Maggi S, Luchini C, Solmi M, Smith T, et al. Osteoarthritis and mortality: a prospective cohort study and systematic review with meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2016;46(2):160–7. pmid:27179749
- 67. Nava S, Sordi V, Pascucci L, Tremolada C, Ciusani E, Zeira O, et al. Long-Lasting Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Human Microfragmented Adipose Tissue. Stem cells international (2019) 2019:5901479. Epub 2019/03/28. pmid:30915125; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6399530.
- 68. Guo B, Sawkulycz X, Heidari N, Rogers R, Liu D, Slevin M. Characterisation of Novel Angiogenic and Potent Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue. Int J Mol Sci (2021) 22(6). Epub 2021/04/04. pmid:33806897; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8004757.
- 69. Laureti S, Gionchetti P, Cappelli A, Vittori L, Contedini F, Rizzello F, et al. Refractory Complex Crohn’s Perianal Fistulas: A Role for Autologous Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Injection. Inflamm Bowel Dis (2020) 26(2):321–30. Epub 2019/06/21. pmid:31220252; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6943693.
- 70. Lonardi R, Leone N, Gennai S, Trevisi Borsari G, Covic T, Silingardi R. Autologous micro-fragmented adipose tissue for the treatment of diabetic foot minor amputations: a randomized controlled single-center clinical trial (MiFrAADiF). Stem Cell Res Ther (2019) 10(1):223. Epub 2019/07/31. pmid:31358046; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6664586.
- 71. Boero V, Brambilla M, Sipio E, Liverani CA, Di Martino M, Agnoli B, et al. Vulvar lichen sclerosus: A new regenerative approach through fat grafting. Gynecol Oncol (2015) 139(3):471–5. Epub 2015/10/27. pmid:26499935.
- 72. Rutjes AW, Juni P, da Costa BR, Trelle S, Nuesch E, Reichenbach S. Viscosupplementation for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med (2012) 157(3):180–91. Epub 2012/08/08. pmid:22868835.