Orthobiologic injections, meaning platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), are offered in selected situations. No reliable ability to regenerate nerve, to reverse peripheral neuropathy, or to consistently prevent its progression has been established. That framing does not change anywhere on this page.
What can change is how much we tell you about the evidence sitting behind that framing. There is a published human literature on orthobiologics in nerve conditions. It is small, it is short, its preparations are not standardized, and much of it was built by studying people who were screened for being uncomplicated. Saying only “not approved, not established” and stopping there leaves out the part a patient with diabetes and fifteen years of burning feet most needs to hear.
So this page sets out what those studies found, who was in them, who was deliberately kept out, and what a clinician can and cannot honestly conclude from that. This is the conversation we have with patients across the St. Louis region, Missouri and Illinois before anything is injected.
Key points
- A 2024 multispecialty consensus guideline concluded that “very limited evidence” suggests perineural PRP may improve pain and numbness in diabetic peripheral neuropathy compared with conventional medical management [2].
- A systematic review of injectable biologics across neuropathic pain conditions rated the overall certainty of evidence as very low by GRADE criteria [3].
- Every human study of PRP in diabetic peripheral neuropathy that we located added PRP to medical management. None tested it as a stand-alone treatment [4][5].
- These trials routinely exclude diabetes, systemic disease, severe disease and overlapping neuropathies — much of the patient profile this practice actually treats [8][9][10].
- Peripheral neuropathy covers at least seven distinct pathophysiologic phenotypes [1]. The driver decides what belongs in a plan.
- Untested is not the same as promising. Both sentences get said here, with the same weight.
First, the condition is not one thing
Burning, numbness and electric sensations are the alarm. They are not the wiring fault. A 2026 phenotype-driven review classifies peripheral neuropathy into distal “dying-back” axonopathy, neuronopathy (ganglionopathy), demyelinating neuropathies, small-fiber neuropathy, autonomic neuropathy, ischemic, infiltrative or inflammatory axonopathies, and focal compressive or entrapment neuropathies [1].
Seven mechanisms, one symptom vocabulary. That is why a general claim about “injections for neuropathy” is not a claim about anything in particular, and it is also why the studies below cannot simply be added together. A trial in carpal tunnel syndrome and a trial in diabetic polyneuropathy are not studying the same disease.
What orthobiologic injections are
PRP is the patient’s own blood, drawn and centrifuged to concentrate platelets and the growth factors they carry. BMAC is bone marrow aspirated from the patient, then centrifuged to concentrate the mononuclear cell fraction, which includes mesenchymal cells that have not been culture-expanded.
The 2024 consensus guideline describes these as the pillars of regenerative medicine in pain practice and notes the regulatory frame they sit in: under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and the associated federal regulations, only minimally manipulated products in homologous use are permitted, nothing may be added to the product, and it should not have a systemic effect. Culture-expanding cells is more than minimal manipulation and is not permitted on that pathway [2].
That matters for reading claims. A regulatory pathway that allows a same-day autologous product is not a finding that the product works. Those two things are easy to blur and are routinely blurred in advertising.

What the published evidence actually shows
The formal guideline position
A multispecialty working group published evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on regenerative medicine for chronic pain in 2024. Its Consensus Point 27 states that very limited evidence suggests perineural injection of PRP along certain nerves, including the median, ulnar, radial, peroneal, tibial, saphenous and sural nerves, may be associated with improvements in pain intensity and neurological symptoms such as numbness in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, compared with conventional medical management [2].
That is the strongest formal statement in this field, and it is deliberately hedged. The same guideline reports that a systematic review of 27 human studies of injectable biologics for neuropathic pain — covering post-spinal-cord-injury pain, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, painful scars, pudendal neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, peripheral neuropathy and radiculopathy — found very low certainty of evidence by GRADE criteria [2][3]. The review’s authors called for standardized preparation, dosage and route before higher-quality trials could be run [3].
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy: two small studies, both combination designs
The first is a randomized trial of 60 adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic peripheral neuropathy of at least six months’ duration, conducted at a university hospital pain clinic and rheumatology and rehabilitation departments in Egypt. One group received ultrasound-guided perineural PRP plus medical treatment; the other received medical treatment alone. Patients were followed at one, three and six months. Pain and numbness visual analog scores and the modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score improved in the PRP group compared with the control group at every time point [4].
The honest reading: 60 people, one center, six months, and the comparison was PRP-plus-medication against medication alone, not PRP against a sham injection. The full text sits behind a subscription and we could not verify its exclusion criteria; the published abstract does not state them, and we are not going to guess at them.
The second is a prospective case-control study of 80 people with type 2 diabetic peripheral neuropathy, 40 receiving ultrasound-guided perineural PRP with medical treatment and 40 receiving medical treatment alone. In the intervention group, tibial motor nerve conduction velocity rose from 38.5 ± 5.2 to 45.3 ± 4.8 m/s and peroneal motor conduction from 36.2 ± 4.9 to 42.7 ± 5.1 m/s at three months. The modified Toronto score fell from 12.4 ± 2.1 to 6.3 ± 1.8 and pain from 8.2 ± 1.0 to 3.5 ± 1.2. The control group worsened on both scores over the same period [5].
The honest reading: this was a case-control design, not a randomized one. Participants were not assigned by chance, so a difference between the groups that nobody measured can produce a result like this. Follow-up was three months. This paper is also behind a subscription and its exclusion criteria could not be verified.
Those two studies, roughly 140 people between them at two centers over three to six months, are the clinical evidence base for PRP in diabetic peripheral neuropathy that we were able to locate. That is not a reason to dismiss them. It is a reason not to build a promise on them.
Bone marrow cells: studied, but not as BMAC and not around the nerve
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis screened 5,431 records and found seven controlled trials of stem cell therapy in diabetic peripheral neuropathy, covering 400 patients with a mean age of 62.4 ± 8.5 years. Six were conducted in China in people with type 2 diabetes; one in Egypt included both type 1 and type 2. Five used bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells and two used umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. All but one delivered the cells by intramuscular injection into the leg; the remaining study used intravenous delivery [6].
Pooled results favored treatment: motor nerve conduction velocity improved by 2.2 m/s (95% CI 1.6 to 2.8), sensory conduction by 1.9 m/s (95% CI 1.1 to 2.6), vibration perception threshold fell by 2.9 V (95% CI −4.0 to −1.8) and the Toronto Clinical Scoring System fell by 3.6 points (95% CI −5.0 to −2.2). Reported complications were pain and swelling at the injection sites, resolving within days [6].
The honest reading, in the review authors’ own terms: only one of the seven trials was randomized, four of the seven raised risk-of-bias concerns, follow-up ran only to 3, 6 or 12 months, and the field lacks high-quality controlled trials with large sample sizes and any long-term safety follow-up [6].
There is also a design point that matters directly to a patient asking about an injection. Those cells went into leg muscle, not around a nerve. Bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells are a close relative of BMAC, which is bone marrow aspirate centrifuged to concentrate that same cell fraction [2], but the preparations are not standardized across studies and neither is the route. This evidence does not transfer cleanly to a perineural BMAC injection, and we do not present it as though it does. A 2026 review of orthobiologics in type 2 diabetes states that evidence for BMAC and mesenchymal stromal cell outcomes specifically in diabetic patients remains sparse [11].
Entrapment neuropathy: the best-studied nerve indication, and where its ceiling shows
Carpal tunnel syndrome is a focal compressive neuropathy, and it has more PRP data than any other nerve condition. A 2025 meta-analysis pooled seven randomized trials covering 365 patients, 183 receiving PRP and 182 receiving conventional non-surgical care, all with mild to moderate disease [7].
Symptom severity improved with PRP at one, three and six months and functional status at three and six months. Pain scores were lower at three months but not at one. Meanwhile the cross-sectional area of the median nerve, sensory nerve conduction velocity and distal motor latency showed no statistically significant difference between groups at any time point. No serious adverse reactions were recorded in the four studies that tracked them [7].
Both halves of that are true at once. In the nerve condition with the most PRP evidence, what improved was how people felt and functioned; the electrical and ultrasound measurements of the nerve did not follow. Neither half should be dropped when the result is quoted.
A 2025 randomized controlled trial adds a harder finding. Seventy-five patients with mild to moderate idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome were assigned in equal groups to perineural bupivacaine with methylprednisolone, to pulsed radiofrequency with bupivacaine, or to perineural PRP. All three groups improved in pain, symptoms, function, median nerve cross-sectional area and nerve conduction. Pulsed radiofrequency and steroid produced greater improvement than PRP, and the PRP group showed the least improvement of the three over the four-month study [8].
That is a modest-to-negative result for PRP and we are not going to soften it. What we will do is say who was in that trial, because it changes what the result can be used to conclude.
Other nerve conditions: small, and mostly uncontrolled
An open-label interventional study gave a single 1 mL perineural PRP injection to 30 patients with Hansen’s disease and ulnar or common peroneal neuropathy; 27 completed 12 weeks of follow-up. Two-point discrimination, area of sensory loss, hand dynamometry and foot muscle power improved, activity-limitation scores improved at 12 weeks, and motor nerve conduction amplitude rose while sensory latency fell and sensory conduction velocity rose at 12 weeks. No adverse effects were recorded beyond one to two days of injection-site pain [9].
There was no control group. In a single-arm open-label study over 12 weeks, in patients who were also on multidrug therapy for the underlying infection, treatment effect cannot be separated from natural recovery or expectation. The authors say as much, and note that long-term effects could not be assessed.
A single-blind randomized comparative trial studied 30 men with incomplete traumatic sciatic nerve injury, assigning them to five weekly ultrasound-guided 5 mL perineural PRP injections plus 12 weeks of rehabilitation, or to rehabilitation alone, with six months of follow-up. At one month, PRP had not improved the motor or sensory function scales. By three and six months, motor function ratings and conduction velocities favored the PRP group over rehabilitation alone. The authors’ own conclusion is that PRP “may be partially effective” in the early repair of incomplete sciatic nerve injuries [10].
Why these studies do not answer the question a complex patient is asking
The people who were screened out
This is the part that decides how much weight any of the above can carry, and it is checkable in the papers themselves.
The carpal tunnel trial in which PRP performed worst excluded, in the authors’ words, “secondary CTS due to systemic disease including thyroid disease, diabetes mellitus, or acromegaly.” It also excluded severe carpal tunnel syndrome, defined as distal motor latency to abductor pollicis brevis above 6.5 ms or absent median sensory potentials or a nerve cross-sectional area above 15.0 mm², along with “other neuropathies overlapping with CTS,” previous median nerve release or wrist surgery, pregnancy, concurrent steroids, known allergy to the study medications, and any carpal tunnel injection in the previous six months. Enrollment was restricted to ages 20 to 60 with mild to moderate idiopathic disease that had already failed at least three months of conservative care [8].
The sciatic nerve trial enrolled only men aged 18 to 60 with an incomplete injury three weeks old who had received no other treatment. The authors state that “patients without other diseases were included,” and excluded pre-existing bilateral sciatic dysfunction and severe cardiopulmonary, hematological, skin, infectious, oncological and psychiatric disorders [10].
The Hansen’s disease study excluded uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, known severe cardiac, hepatic or renal disease, antiplatelet medication, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs within a week, systemic steroids above 20 mg daily, local steroid injection within six months, disease diagnosed more than three years earlier, active lepra reactions, and anyone with a platelet count below 50 × 10³, hemoglobin below 10 g/dL or mean platelet volume above 12.3 fL [9].
The carpal tunnel meta-analysis pooled only mild to moderate disease treated non-surgically. Severe disease was not in the pool, and surgical patients were excluded by design [7].
Now read that list against the person who usually walks into this clinic: type 2 diabetes or insulin resistance, often obesity, frequently on an antiplatelet agent, ten or twenty years of symptoms, more than one driver at once, and several treatments already tried without success. Most of them would not have been enrolled in most of these studies.
Two conclusions follow, and they point in opposite directions. Both are true and we state both.
First, a modest or negative result in a screened, uncomplicated population does not establish that a treatment fails in the patients who were screened out. That is the ordinary external-validity problem, and it is why we do not treat the carpal tunnel finding as a verdict on orthobiologics in metabolic neuropathy.
Second, and just as important, it means there is no evidence that these injections help those patients either. Untested is not the same as promising. Anyone who uses the first conclusion without the second is selling something.
What a short single-modality study cannot measure
Every diabetic neuropathy study we located tested PRP added to medical management [4][5]. None isolated PRP against a sham, and none tested it inside a sequenced plan that also corrects perfusion, glycemic control and the substrates repair requires. A study of one modality cannot report on a combination it never assembled.
Follow-up across this entire literature ran from three to twelve months [6][7][8][9][10]. Nothing here speaks to what happens after a year, and peripheral neuropathy is measured in decades.
Outcome measures also disagree with each other. In carpal tunnel, symptoms and function moved while nerve conduction and nerve size did not [7]. In diabetic neuropathy, conduction velocities moved [5]. Those are different questions, they can genuinely diverge, and a study that measures one is silent about the other. Function — walking, balance, sleeping through the night — is often not measured at all.
Efficacy under trial conditions is also a different question from effectiveness in practice. Preparation protocols, platelet doses, leukocyte content, injection volumes, nerve targets and number of sessions were not standardized across these studies, which is precisely what the 2022 systematic review asked the field to fix before running larger trials [3].
Metabolic dysfunction may change the biologic itself
There is a complication in this literature that nobody advertises, and it deserves stating plainly because it cuts against easy optimism.
A 2026 narrative review of orthobiologic therapy in type 2 diabetes reports that people with type 2 diabetes show reduced responsiveness to PRP, BMAC and mesenchymal stromal cell preparations. It attributes this to advanced glycation end-product accumulation, NF-κB-driven chronic inflammation, impaired Nrf2 antioxidant signaling, mitochondrial dysfunction and persistent epigenetic changes it calls “diabetic memory.” It summarizes published reports that PRP from diabetic donors can carry higher VEGF concentrations and still produce inferior clinical results, and that bone marrow mobilization failure has been documented at 15.6% in diabetic patients compared with 6.4% in non-diabetic controls. The review states that its own framework is hypothesis-generating rather than a clinical protocol [11].
That is a caution, not a selling point. If metabolic terrain is the rate-limiting step, then treating the terrain is the treatment, and anything injected into unchanged terrain is being asked to do a job the surrounding tissue cannot support. It is one of the reasons metabolic and nutritional care is the foundation here rather than an add-on to a procedure.
How evidence strength varies across other options
It helps to see what a stronger evidence base looks like in the same condition. For painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, adding 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation to optimized medical management produced markedly higher responder rates at six months in a randomized trial, with benefit sustained through 24 months [1]. Ultrasound-guided pulsed radiofrequency for focal entrapment-type neuropathic pain sits differently: reported benefits are generally short to mid-term with heterogeneous protocols, so certainty varies by indication [1].
The 2026 review that describes both of those describes itself as a narrative review, not a formal practice guideline [1]. “Described in the literature” and “standard of care” remain different statements. Apply the same structure to orthobiologics: ask about the specific phenotype and the specific indication, not about “neuropathy” in general.
What is still not established
- No reliable ability to regenerate nerve, reverse peripheral neuropathy, or consistently prevent its progression has been established for orthobiologic injections in any neuropathy type.
- They are not FDA-approved for this indication. Autologous PRP and same-day BMAC are used under minimal-manipulation, homologous-use provisions [2], which is a regulatory pathway and not a finding of efficacy.
- We located no head-to-head trial comparing PRP with BMAC in any peripheral neuropathy.
- We located no study testing orthobiologics in a length-dependent polyneuropathy alongside photobiomodulation and metabolic correction, which is the only way the question would ever arise here.
- Insurance coverage is a payer decision, not a clinical finding. Patients sign an advance beneficiary notice for non-covered services. Whether something is covered says nothing about whether it works.
What would actually settle the question
A patient is entitled to know what a real answer would require. It would take the following, and none of it exists yet.
- A randomized trial with a credible sham injection, rather than a medication-only comparison group.
- Enrollment that deliberately includes metabolic dysfunction, obesity, long symptom duration, polypharmacy and prior failed treatment, with analysis planned in advance for those subgroups instead of excluding them.
- A standardized and fully reported preparation: platelet dose, leukocyte content, volume, nerve target and number of sessions [3].
- Outcomes covering both what patients feel and what can be measured, since symptom scores and nerve conduction have already been shown to move independently of each other [5][7].
- Follow-up well beyond twelve months, which nothing in the current literature provides [6].
- Trials that test the injection inside a combination protocol, because a combination is the only setting in which it would be used.
What we do instead of guessing
Map the driver before choosing a therapy
Metabolic, nutritional, autoimmune, toxic and structural drivers overlap and frequently coexist. Identifying the dominant one changes what belongs in the plan more than any single modality does.
The reasoning behind that approach is set out in the science of nerve terrain rehabilitation.
Test to answer a question
We perform electrodiagnostic testing (EMG/NCS) on site. It characterizes large-fiber involvement and localizes a problem, and it can be normal in small fiber neuropathy, so a normal study does not end the evaluation.
Videonystagmography (VNG) is used as a diagnostic test of inner-ear balance function when unsteadiness is part of the picture. It is not a treatment for neuropathy or for anything else.

Treat the terrain the nerve depends on
Restoring perfusion so oxygen reaches the nerve, reducing the metabolic pathways that keep producing glycation injury, and supplying the substrates repair requires are the foundation. Class 4 photobiomodulation, class 3B cold laser and whole-body infrared are used as part of that, matched to the clinical picture.
Qutenza (capsaicin 8% patch) is FDA-approved in adults for neuropathic pain from postherpetic neuralgia and from diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the feet. Use for any other driver is off-label. It is applied in clinic by a clinician, never dispensed for home use, and repeated no more often than every three months.
How risk and benefit get discussed
We do not promise nerve regeneration or reversal of established nerve damage.
We state what is known about safety separately from what is known about benefit. Across this literature the reported adverse effects were injection-site pain, swelling and bruising resolving within days [6][7][9][10], and the 2024 consensus panel described PRP and mesenchymal cell products as having minimal injection-related adverse effects with rare severe reactions [2]. Safety is not efficacy. A treatment can be safe and still not help.
We do not offer an injection in place of finishing a workup, and we do not offer one to a patient whose dominant driver has not been identified. Where a service is not covered, that is discussed as a payer decision and documented before anything happens, not presented as a comment on whether the treatment works.
“My ethos is to treat all of my patients as I would my own family, with the goal of giving them back their quality of life.” — Dr. Gurpreet Singh Padda, MD, MBA, MHP
Questions worth bringing to the visit
- Which neuropathy phenotype do you think I have, and what supports that?
- Which driver is dominant in my case, and how did you establish it?
- Which parts of this plan are established, and which are less certain?
- If you are recommending an injection, which study are you relying on, and were patients like me eligible for it?
- What are we doing about the metabolic terrain, and in what order relative to any procedure?
- How will progress be measured, and over what period?
- Do my test results and my symptoms actually agree? If not, what explains the gap?
A clinician who cannot answer the third and fourth questions in plain language is the reason to slow down.
For context on what is used here: Regenerve prepares platelet-rich plasma leukocyte-poor — no white cells, no red cells — activated with calcium chloride, at two to three times baseline platelet concentration with higher dosing in the six to twelve times range, targeting a measured dose above ten billion platelets per joint.
Frequently asked questions
Are PRP or BMAC injections approved for peripheral neuropathy?
Orthobiologic injections are offered in selected situations. Autologous PRP and same-day BMAC are used under federal minimal-manipulation rules, which is a regulatory pathway rather than a finding that they work. See the Regenerve Protocol for peripheral neuropathy.
Is there any published research on PRP for diabetic neuropathy?
Yes, but very little. A randomized trial of 60 people and a non-randomized case-control study of 80 people both reported improvement when PRP was added to medical treatment, over three to six months, and a 2024 consensus guideline calls that “very limited evidence.” Neither study tested PRP on its own against a sham injection. See diabetic peripheral neuropathy treatment in St. Louis.
Why do you say trials may not apply to me?
Because these studies routinely screen out the people this clinic treats. One carpal tunnel trial excluded diabetes, thyroid disease, severe disease and any overlapping neuropathy; a sciatic nerve trial enrolled only men aged 18 to 60 with no other diseases. That means a weak result in those groups does not prove failure in complex patients, and it also means nobody has shown benefit in them. See the hidden drivers of peripheral neuropathy.
Can an EMG and nerve conduction study confirm small fiber neuropathy?
Not on its own. Nerve conduction studies assess large-fiber function and can be normal in small fiber neuropathy, so a normal result does not close the question. The symptom pattern still has to be matched to the right test. See small fiber neuropathy symptoms and testing.
Does VNG balance testing treat neuropathy?
No. Videonystagmography is a diagnostic test of inner-ear balance function, used to tell a vestibular contribution apart from a nerve contribution when someone is unsteady. It treats nothing. See VNG balance testing.
Next step
Before any injection question is worth asking, the driver has to be identified. Five questions start that map, and it takes a couple of minutes.
Sources
- Yuba T, Dabbagh A, Sabouri AS. Peripheral neuropathy: a phenotype-driven review for diagnosis and management. Rev Neurol. 2026;81(4):48384. doi:10.31083/RN48384. PMID 42052783. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13129557/
- D’Souza RS, Her YF, Hussain N, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on regenerative medicine treatment for chronic pain: a consensus report from a multispecialty working group. J Pain Res. 2024;17:2951-3001. doi:10.2147/JPR.S480559. PMID 39282657. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11402349/
- Bies M, Ashmore Z, Qu W, Hunt C. Injectable biologics for neuropathic pain: a systematic review. Pain Med. 2022;23(10):1733-1749. doi:10.1093/pm/pnac066. PMID 35482528. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35482528/
- Hassanien M, Elawamy A, Kamel EZ, et al. Perineural platelet-rich plasma for diabetic neuropathic pain, could it make a difference? Pain Med. 2020;21(4):757-765. doi:10.1093/pm/pnz140. PMID 31298289. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31298289/
- Elsayed AA, Eldeen ES, Osman MA, Elazab SA. Role of platelet rich plasma in management of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a case-control study. J Ultrasound. 2025. doi:10.1007/s40477-025-01042-7. PMID 40624430. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40624430/
- Alizadeh SD, Jahani S, Rukerd MRZ, et al. Human studies of the efficacy and safety of stem cells in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2024;15(1):442. doi:10.1186/s13287-024-04033-3. PMID 39563393. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11577959/
- Du Y, Jiang X, Fu K, Cui C. Efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2025;104(44):e45010. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000045010. PMID 41261653. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12582690/
- Hashem EY, Shamandy FS, Elmulla AF, Mansour MA. Ultrasound-guided pulsed radiofrequency versus perineural platelet rich plasma injection for the treatment of idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome: a prospective randomized controlled study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2025;25(1):406. doi:10.1186/s12871-025-03257-x. PMID 40804365. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12351916/
- Saha A, Kothari SY, Sonune S, et al. Effect of single perineural injection of platelet rich plasma on nerve function in Hansen’s disease with truncal neuropathy: an interventional study. Cureus. 2026;18(1):e102127. doi:10.7759/cureus.102127. PMID 41732637. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12925252/
- Yang C, Wang C, Wang C, Yang G, Wu W. The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of sciatic nerve injury: a single-blind randomized comparative trial. Neural Plast. 2025;2025:7540054. doi:10.1155/np/7540054. PMID 41306443. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12646722/
- Santos MDS, Costa FR, Protasio Netto J, et al. Nutritional interventions to optimize orthobiologic therapy quality in type 2 diabetes mellitus: molecular mechanisms and clinical framework: a narrative review. Int J Mol Sci. 2026;27(9):3749. doi:10.3390/ijms27093749. PMID 42123336. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13164227/














