fbpx

Literature Review in Orthopaedic Surgery Journal 2016

Literature Review in Orthopaedic Surgery Journal 2016

April 25,2018

Macquarie Stem Cells has provided this information to educate the public based on peer reviewed, published scientific and medical documents. We don’t aim to encourage consumers to seek out such treatments prior to an assessment by a health professional to determine your suitability for treatment. This is obtained directly from NCBI Pubmed Literature. This project received institutional support by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Finalizzata. We aim to provide you with an unbiased range of treatments that are available aside from biological therapy, this is discussed in ‘supporting information>other-options’  page on our website.

Published: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery – 2016

TITLE “Stem Cells in Articular Cartilage Regeneration” (Guiseppe et al., 2016)

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW – this is now outdated, but it shows how far we have come in a short time frame. More recent review at the bottom of this article

Abstract

“Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have emerged as a promising option to treat articular defects and early osteoarthritis (OA) stages. However, both their potential and limitations for a clinical use remain controversial. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to examine MSCs treatment strategies in clinical settings, in order to summarize the current evidence of their efficacy for the treatment of cartilage lesions and OA.Among the 60 selected studies, 7 were randomized, 13 comparative, 31 case series, and 9 case reports; 26 studies reported the results after injective administration, whereas 33 used surgical implantation.  We examined the cell source studies as listed below;” (Guiseppe et al., 2016)

  • 20 Bone Marrow based biological interventions
  • 17 Adipose based biological interventions
  • 16 Bone Marrow Concentrates only
  • 5 Peripheral based biological interventions
  • 1 Synovium based biological interventions
  • 1 compared Bone marrow  based biological interventions vs. Peripheral  based biological interventions

“Overall, despite the increasing literature on this topic, there is still limited evidence about the use of MSCs for the treatment of articular cartilage, in particular as far as high-level studies are concerned: in fact, most of the available papers are case series, while only few papers reported RCTs. Moreover, the few high level studies do not allow to clearly prove the effective potential of MSCs, due to the limited number of patients treated and to the presence of several confounding factors (PRP concomitant use, cell use in combination with scaffolds, etc.). To this regard, while several studies applied cells in association with PRP, with the rationale to provide both cells and growth factors at the same time, there is no evidence that adding platelet-derived growth factors provides any increased benefit with respect to cell administration alone, and specifically designed studies are needed in order to clarify the role of PRP with respect to MSCs and/or scaffolds in cartilage treatment. Furthermore, the tissue harvest procedure poses practical and ethical limitations which prevent from performing studies with a blinded design, therefore leaving an important bias related to the placebo effect, which is an important issue in this field of new fashionable regenerative treatments.”(Guiseppe et al., 2016)

 

If you would like to read more recent literature reviews. The 2017 systematic review for biological treatments can be found here. (MOST RECENT)

 

REF: Filardo, G., Perdisa, F., Roffi, A., Marcacci, M., & Kon, E. (2016). Stem cells in articular cartilage regeneration. Journal Of Orthopaedic Surgery And Research, 11(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-016-0378-x

Tags: Macquarie Stem Cells, Dr. Bright, Osteoarthritis Treatment, Dr. Ralph Bright, Biological Therapy, Biological Treatment, Treatment of Arthritis, Systematic Review, Literature Review

 

Remember, any surgical or invasive procedure carries risks. Before proceeding, you should seek a second opinion from an appropriately qualified health practitioner.

Make an Enquiry Today