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 development of spinal deformity in children with underlying neurodisability can affect their ability to function and impact on their quality of life, as well as compromise provision of nursing care. Patients with neuromuscular spinal deformity are among the most challenging due to the number and complexity of medical comorbidities that increase the risk for severe intraoperative or postoperative complications. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory at every stage to ensure that all nonoperative measures have been applied, and that the treatment goals have been clearly defined and agreed with the family. This will involve input from multiple specialities, including allied healthcare professionals, such as physiotherapists and wheelchair services. Surgery should be considered when there is significant impact on the patients’ quality of life, which is usually due to poor sitting balance, back or costo-pelvic pain, respiratory complications, or problems with self-care and feeding. Meticulous preoperative assessment is required, along with careful consideration of the nature of the deformity and the problems that it is causing. Surgery can achieve good curve correction and results in high levels of satisfaction from the patients and their caregivers. Modern modular posterior instrumentation systems allow an effective deformity correction. However, the risks of surgery remain high, and involvement of the family at all stages of decision-making is required in order to balance the risks and anticipated gains of the procedure, and to select those patients who can mostly benefit from spinal correction.