There is good scientific rationale to support the use of growth factors to promote musculoskeletal tissue regeneration. However, the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and other blood-derived products has yet to be proven. Characterization and reporting of PRP preparation protocols utilized in clinical trials for the treatment of musculoskeletal disease is highly inconsistent, and the majority of studies do not provide sufficient information to allow the protocols to be reproduced. Furthermore, the reporting of blood-derived products in orthopaedics is limited by the multiple PRP classification systems available, which makes comparison of results between studies challenging. Several attempts have been made to characterize and classify PRP; however, no consensus has been reached, and there is lack of a comprehensive and validated classification. In this annotation, we outline existing systems used to classify preparations of PRP, highlighting their advantages and limitations. There remains a need for standardized universal nomenclature to describe biological therapies, as well as a comprehensive and reproducible classification system for autologous blood-derived products.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:891–896.

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.

Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head is a potentially devastating condition, the prevalence of which is increasing. Many joint-preserving forms of treatment, both medical and surgical, have been developed in an attempt to slow or reverse its progression, as it usually affects young patients.

However, it is important to evaluate the best evidence that is available for the many forms of treatment considering the variation in the demographics of the patients, the methodology and the outcomes in the studies that have been published, so that it can be used effectively.

The purpose of this review, therefore, was to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based guide to the management, both non-operative and operative, of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1267–79.

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.

Bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells were aspirated from immature male green fluorescent protein transgenic rats and cultured in a monolayer. Four weeks after the creation of the osteochondral defect, the rats were divided into three groups of 18: the control group, treated with an intra-articular injection of phosphate-buffered saline only; the drilling group, treated with an intra-articular injection of phosphate-buffered saline with a bone marrow-stimulating procedure; and the bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells group, treated with an intra-articular injection of bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells plus a bone marrow-stimulating procedure. The rats were then killed at 4, 8 and 12 weeks after treatment and examined.

The histological scores were significantly better in the bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells group than in the control and drilling groups at all time points (p < 0.05). The fluorescence of the green fluorescent protein-positive cells could be observed in specimens four weeks after treatment.

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.