scholarly journals Comparing PRP and bone marrow aspirate effects on cartilage defects associated with partial meniscectomy: a confocal microscopy study on animal model

2021 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 263-268
Author(s):  
Adrian Emil Lăzărescu ◽  
◽  
Adrian Ovidiu Văduva ◽  
Gheorghe Bogdan Hogea ◽  
Cristian Croicu ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
James Holton ◽  
Mohamed Imam ◽  
Jonathan Ward ◽  
Martyn Snow

There has been great interest in bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) as a cost effective method in delivering mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to aid in the repair and regeneration of cartilage defects. Alongside MSCs, BMAC contains a range of growth factors and cytokines to support cell growth following injury. However, there is paucity of information relating to the basic science underlying BMAC and its exact biological role in supporting the growth and regeneration of chondrocytes. The focus of this review is the basic science underlying BMAC in relation to chondral damage and regeneration.


Cartilage ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric J. Cotter ◽  
Kevin C. Wang ◽  
Adam B. Yanke ◽  
Susan Chubinskaya

Objective To critically evaluate the current basic science, translational, and clinical data regarding bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) in the setting of focal cartilage defects of the knee and describe clinical indications and future research questions surrounding the clinical utility of BMAC for treatment of these lesions. Design A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE databases for studies in English (1980-2017) using keywords, including [“bone marrow aspirate” and “cartilage”], [“mesenchymal stem cells” and “cartilage”], and [“bone marrow aspirate” and “mesenchymal stem cells” and “orthopedics”]. A total of 1832 articles were reviewed by 2 independent authors and additional literature found through scanning references of cited articles. Results BMAC has demonstrated promising results in the clinical application for repair of chondral defects as an adjuvant procedure or as an independent management technique. A subcomponent of BMAC, bone marrow derived–mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) possess the ability to differentiate into cells important for osteogenesis and chondrogenesis. Modulation of paracrine signaling is perhaps the most important function of BM-MSCs in this setting. In an effort to increase the cellular yield, authors have shown the ability to expand BM-MSCs in culture while maintaining phenotype. Conclusions Translational studies have demonstrated good clinical efficacy of BMAC both concomitant with cartilage restoration procedures, at defined time points after surgery, and as isolated injections. Early clinical data suggests BMAC may help stimulate a more robust hyaline cartilage repair tissue response. Numerous questions remain regarding BMAC usage, including cell source, cell expansion, optimal pathology, and injection timing and quantity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (16) ◽  
pp. 7309
Author(s):  
Paul-Gabriel Borodi ◽  
Octav Marius Russu ◽  
Andrei Marian Feier ◽  
Vlad Alexandru Georgeanu ◽  
Sándor-György Zuh ◽  
...  

The technique of microfracture (MFX) was first performed 40 years ago and served for many years as the main procedure for repairing cartilage defects. There is a need to improve microfractures because the regenerated cartilage differs from the original histological aspect; it is less hyaline and more fibrocartilaginous. In addition, and more importantly, the benefits do not persist and the long-term results are unsatisfactory. Adjunctive treatments include platelet-rich plasma (PRP), cell-free-based scaffolds, adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs), and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). The aim of this review was to provide an overview and a perspective of the available data regarding MFX and the principal adjunctive treatments from recent years and also to challenge the traditional MFX procedure. We found that cell-free scaffolds, platelet-rich plasma, and bone marrow aspirate concentrate, although they are relatively novel therapies, showed great potential and maintained their clinical benefits for longer periods of time compared to microfracture alone. As for chitosan-based therapy and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells, we were not able to form a definitive conclusion. We believe that the available data show promising results, and future research should be done on each topic discussed. Moreover, investigators involved in bone marrow stimulation techniques should focus on conducting prospective comparative studies, performing second-look arthroscopy, and rely on a single enhancement procedure that can be adequately compared with MFX alone.


Gene Therapy ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Pascher ◽  
GD Palmer ◽  
A Steinert ◽  
T Oligino ◽  
E Gouze ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Anshul S Sobti ◽  
Kwaku W Baryeh ◽  
Rex Woolf ◽  
Rishi Chana

Abstract In an attempt to bridge the osteoarthritis (OA) gap, this study compared biological reconstruction with traditional microfracture (MF) techniques in patients with femoroacetabular impingement and focal cartilage defects. Cohorts of two groups were investigated; age, gender and Tonnis grade matched comparison for outcomes between MF and newer biological reconstruction techniques hip arthroscopy surgery using autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis and bone marrow aspirate combination. Outcomes investigated were pre-op and post-op mean iHOT-12 scores up to 18 months after surgery with a Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis. Of 111 patients, 46 patients underwent MF and 65 biological reconstruction hip arthroscopy including cam/pincer osteoplasty and labral repair surgery. Age range was 20–69, mean age 45 years for both groups, Tonnis grading was as follows: Grade 0: 26% versus 30%, Grade 1: 52% versus 47% and Grade 2: 22% versus 23% in MF and biological reconstruction groups, respectively. The mean post-operative iHOT-12 score differences between MF and biological reconstruction were significant at 1-year minimum follow-up (P = 0.01, SD 2.8). Biological reconstruction allowed for an enhanced recovery protocol. The MF group had a 67.4% survivorship for conversion to hip replacement at 18 months (32.6% failure rate for any reason) and biological reconstruction had 100% survivorship at 18 months post-operatively with no failures for any reason. This study provides further support to the evidence base for biological reconstructive techniques as superior to MF in combination with joint preservation arthroscopic surgery, even in the face of focal cartilage defects and offers both surgeons and patients a potential bridging of the OA gap.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document