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.

Aims

Tissue responses to debris formed by abrasion of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacers at two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection are not well described. We hypothesised that PMMA debris induces immunomodulation in periprosthetic tissues.

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.

In this paper, we will consider the current role of simultaneous-bilateral TKA. Based on available evidence, it is our opinion that simultaneous bilateral TKA carries a higher risk of morbidity and mortality and should be reserved for select few.

Invasive group A streptococcus (iGAS) is the most common cause of monomicrobial necrotising fasciitis. Necrotising infections of the extremities may present directly to orthopaedic surgeons or by reference from another admitting specialty. Recent epidemiological data from the Health Protection Agency suggest an increasing incidence of iGAS infection in England. Almost 40% of those affected had no predisposing illnesses or risk factors, and the proportion of children presenting with infections has risen. These observations have prompted the Chief Medical Officer for the Central Alerting System in England to write to general practitioners and hospitals, highlighting the need for clinical vigilance, early diagnosis and rapid initiation of treatment in suspected cases.

The purpose of this annotation is to summarise the recent epidemiological trends, describe the presenting features and outline the current investigations and treatment of this rare but life-threatening condition.