ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Biologic Augmentation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Beyond: A Review of PRP and BMAC.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of platelet-rich plasma on pain, function, and graft maturation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Standardized Preparation and Multi-Site Application of Leukocyte-Poor Platelet-Rich Plasma in Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Technical Note with Early Functional Outcomes.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Persistence of mechanoreceptors in ACL remnants: a histological and immunohistochemical analysis of 128 patients.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Osteoinductive and Biocompatibility Assessment of a 3D-Printed Polymeric-Hydroxyapatite Composite Interference Screw.Polymers · 2026Article
- Remnant-preserving selective posterolateral bundle reconstruction for partial ACL tears: a retrospective comparative study of functional outcomes, graft maturation, and return-to-sport rates with and without biologic augmentation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Exosome-Based Therapeutics in Dermatology and Beyond: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This narrative review synthesizes PubMed- and Scopus-indexed studies from 2020 to 2025, including preclinical animal models, prospective cohort studies, and level I and II randomized trials, to compare two leading biologic augmentation strategies: platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). The review examines underlying mechanisms of action, delivery techniques, imaging biomarkers of graft maturation, patient-reported and functional outcomes, safety profiles, cost-effectiveness, and regulatory frameworks. PRP provides early anti-inflammatory and proangiogenic signaling, while BMAC delivers a concentrated population of mesenchymal stem cells and growth factors to the tendon-bone interface. Both modalities consistently enhance MRI-defined graft maturation, yet evidence of long-term functional or biomechanical superiority remains inconclusive. Emerging therapies such as peptide hydrogels, adipose-derived stem cells, and exosome delivery offer promising avenues for future research. Standardized protocols and large multicenter trials are needed to clarify comparative efficacy and inform personalized rehabilitation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.