Aims

Implantation of ultra-purified alginate (UPAL) gel is safe and effective in animal osteochondral defect models. This study aimed to examine the applicability of UPAL gel implantation to acellular therapy in humans with cartilage injury.

Cell therapies hold significant promise for the treatment of injured or diseased musculoskeletal tissues. However, despite advances in research, there is growing concern about the increasing number of clinical centres around the world that are making unwarranted claims or are performing risky biological procedures. Such providers have been known to recommend, prescribe, or deliver so called ‘stem cell’ preparations without sufficient data to support their true content and efficacy. In this annotation, we outline the current environment of stem cell-based treatments and the strategies of marketing directly to consumers. We also outline the difficulties in the regulation of these clinics and make recommendations for best practice and the identification and reporting of illegitimate providers.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):148–154

Stem cells are defined by their potential for self-renewal and the ability to differentiate into numerous cell types, including cartilage and bone cells. Although basic laboratory studies demonstrate that cell therapies have strong potential for improvement in tissue healing and regeneration, there is little evidence in the scientific literature for many of the available cell formulations that are currently offered to patients. Numerous commercial entities and ‘regenerative medicine centres’ have aggressively marketed unproven cell therapies for a wide range of medical conditions, leading to sometimes indiscriminate use of these treatments, which has added to the confusion and unpredictable outcomes. The significant variability and heterogeneity in cell formulations between different individuals makes it difficult to draw conclusions about efficacy. The ‘minimally manipulated’ preparations derived from bone marrow and adipose tissue that are currently used differ substantially from cells that are processed and prepared under defined laboratory protocols. The term ‘stem cells’ should be reserved for laboratory-purified, culture-expanded cells. The number of cells in uncultured preparations that meet these defined criteria is estimated to be approximately one in 10 000 to 20 000 (0.005% to 0.01%) in native bone marrow and 1 in 2000 in adipose tissue. It is clear that more refined definitions of stem cells are required, as the lumping together of widely diverse progenitor cell types under the umbrella term ‘mesenchymal stem cells’ has created confusion among scientists, clinicians, regulators, and our patients. Validated methods need to be developed to measure and characterize the ‘critical quality attributes’ and biological activity of a specific cell formulation. It is certain that ‘one size does not fit all’ – different cell formulations, dosing schedules, and culturing parameters will likely be required based on the tissue being treated and the desired biological target. As an alternative to the use of exogenous cells, in the future we may be able to stimulate the intrinsic vascular stem cell niche that is known to exist in many tissues. The tremendous potential of cell therapy will only be realized with further basic, translational, and clinical research.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:361–364.

The ability of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to differentiate in vitro into chondrocytes, osteocytes and myocytes holds great promise for tissue engineering. Skeletal defects are emerging as key targets for treatment using MSCs due to the high responsiveness of bone to interventions in animal models. Interest in MSCs has further expanded in recognition of their ability to release growth factors and to adjust immune responses.

Despite their increasing application in clinical trials, the origin and role of MSCs in the development, repair and regeneration of organs have remained unclear. Until recently, MSCs could only be isolated in a process that requires culture in a laboratory; these cells were being used for tissue engineering without understanding their native location and function. MSCs isolated in this indirect way have been used in clinical trials and remain the reference standard cellular substrate for musculoskeletal engineering. The therapeutic use of autologous MSCs is currently limited by the need for ex vivo expansion and by heterogeneity within MSC preparations. The recent discovery that the walls of blood vessels harbour native precursors of MSCs has led to their prospective identification and isolation. MSCs may therefore now be purified from dispensable tissues such as lipo-aspirate and returned for clinical use in sufficient quantity, negating the requirement for ex vivo expansion and a second surgical procedure.

In this annotation we provide an update on the recent developments in the understanding of the identity of MSCs within tissues and outline how this may affect their use in orthopaedic surgery in the future.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:291–8.

We hypothesised that meniscal tears treated with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) together with a conventional suturing technique would show improved healing compared with those treated by a conventional suturing technique alone. In a controlled laboratory study 28 adult pigs (56 knees) underwent meniscal procedures after the creation of a radial incision to represent a tear. Group 1 (n = 9) had a radial meniscal tear which was left untreated. In group 2 (n = 19) the incision was repaired with sutures and fibrin glue and in group 3, the experimental group (n = 28), treatment was by MSCs, suturing and fibrin glue.

At eight weeks, macroscopic examination of group 1 showed no healing in any specimens. In group 2 no healing was found in 12 specimens and incomplete healing in seven. The experimental group 3 had 21 specimens with complete healing, five with incomplete healing and two with no healing. Between the experimental group and each of the control groups this difference was significant (p < 0.001).

The histological and macroscopic findings showed that the repair of meniscal tears in the avascular zone was significantly improved with MSCs, but that the mechanical properties of the healed menisci remained reduced.

Articular cartilage repair remains a challenge to surgeons and basic scientists. The field of tissue engineering allows the simultaneous use of material scaffolds, cells and signalling molecules to attempt to modulate the regenerative tissue. This review summarises the research that has been undertaken to date using this approach, with a particular emphasis on those techniques that have been introduced into clinical practice, via in vitro and preclinical studies.

We have investigated whether cells derived from haemarthrosis caused by injury to the anterior cruciate ligament could differentiate into the osteoblast lineage in vitro. Haemarthroses associated with anterior cruciate ligament injuries were aspirated and cultured. After treatment with β-glycerophosphate, ascorbic acid and dexamethasone or 1,25 (OH)₂D₃, a significant increase in the activity of alkaline phosphatase was observed. Matrix mineralisation was demonstrated after 28 days and mRNA levels in osteoblast-related genes were enhanced.

Our results suggest that the haemarthrosis induced by injury to the anterior cruciate ligament contains osteoprogenitor cells and is a potential alternative source for cell-based treatment in such injury.