Micro‐Fragmented Adipose Tissue Demonstrates Comparable Clinical Efficacy to Other Orthobiologic Injections in Treating Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Level I to IV Clinical Studies

Purpose To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes in patients who underwent treatment with micro‐fragmented aspirated tissue for symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. Methods Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were screened for studies from 2000 to 2023. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tools and the Risk Of Bias In Non‐randomised Studies‐of Interventions tool. Study quality was assessed with the modified Coleman Methodology Score and Methodological Index for Non‐Randomized Studies score. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ 2 and I 2 statistics. Results Twenty‐one studies were included. One study had a high ROB, 1 had a critical ROB, 3 had serious ROB, and 16 had a moderate ROB. The mean Coleman score was 58, demonstrating fair study quality; the Methodological Index for Non‐Randomized Studies score had a mean value of 13, indicating overall fair quality. Best evidence synthesis revealed moderate evidence. The visual analog scale score improved from 5.2 to 3.2 at 6 and 12 months. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) activities of daily living subscore improved from 58.8 to 70.2 at 6 months and 67.5 at 12 months. KOOS pain subscore improved from 54.3 to 70.2 at 6 months and 72.4 at 12 months. KOOS quality of life subscore improved from 33.1 to 43.6 at 6 months and 42.9 at 12 months. KOOS sports subscore improved from 23.7 to 43.6 at 6 months and 57.4 at 12 months. KOOS symptoms subscore improved from 55.3 to 70.1 at 6 months and 67.9 at 12 months. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score steadily increased from 61.8 at baseline to 78.4 at 12 months. Conclusions micro‐fragmented aspirated tissue injection therapy for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis is effective and improves pain and functional outcomes. Moderate study quality combined with a moderate risk of bias, moderate certainty of evidence, and moderate best synthesis evidence reduces external validity. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with a degree of caution. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level I‐IV studies.