Cargando…

Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Articular cartilage defects have been addressed by using multiple strategies. In the last two decades, promising new strategies by using assorted scaffolds and cell sources to induce tissue regeneration have emerged, such as autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and mesenchymal stem cell implant...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Deng, Zhantao, Jin, Jiewen, Zhao, Jianning, Xu, Haidong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4709777/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26839570
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9201492
_version_ 1782409709342425088
author Deng, Zhantao
Jin, Jiewen
Zhao, Jianning
Xu, Haidong
author_facet Deng, Zhantao
Jin, Jiewen
Zhao, Jianning
Xu, Haidong
author_sort Deng, Zhantao
collection PubMed
description Articular cartilage defects have been addressed by using multiple strategies. In the last two decades, promising new strategies by using assorted scaffolds and cell sources to induce tissue regeneration have emerged, such as autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and mesenchymal stem cell implantation (MSCI). However, it is still controversial in the clinical strategies when to choose these treatments. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to compare the efficacy and safety of different cartilage treatments. In our study, 17 studies were selected to compare different treatments for cartilage defects. The results of meta-analyses indicated that cell-based cartilage treatments showed significant better efficacy than cell-free treatments did (OR: 4.27, 95% CI: 2.19–8.34; WMD: 10.11, 95% CI: 2.69–16.53). Another result indicated that MACT had significant better efficacy than traditional ACI did (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.30–0.82). Besides, the incidence of graft hypertrophy of MACT was slightly lower than that of traditional ACI (OR: 2.43, 95% CI: 1.00–5.94). Current data showed that the cell-based treatments and MACT are better options for cartilage treatments, but more well-designed comparative studies are still needed to enhance our understanding of different treatments for cartilage defects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4709777
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47097772016-02-02 Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Deng, Zhantao Jin, Jiewen Zhao, Jianning Xu, Haidong Stem Cells Int Review Article Articular cartilage defects have been addressed by using multiple strategies. In the last two decades, promising new strategies by using assorted scaffolds and cell sources to induce tissue regeneration have emerged, such as autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and mesenchymal stem cell implantation (MSCI). However, it is still controversial in the clinical strategies when to choose these treatments. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to compare the efficacy and safety of different cartilage treatments. In our study, 17 studies were selected to compare different treatments for cartilage defects. The results of meta-analyses indicated that cell-based cartilage treatments showed significant better efficacy than cell-free treatments did (OR: 4.27, 95% CI: 2.19–8.34; WMD: 10.11, 95% CI: 2.69–16.53). Another result indicated that MACT had significant better efficacy than traditional ACI did (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.30–0.82). Besides, the incidence of graft hypertrophy of MACT was slightly lower than that of traditional ACI (OR: 2.43, 95% CI: 1.00–5.94). Current data showed that the cell-based treatments and MACT are better options for cartilage treatments, but more well-designed comparative studies are still needed to enhance our understanding of different treatments for cartilage defects. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016 2015-12-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4709777/ /pubmed/26839570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9201492 Text en Copyright © 2016 Zhantao Deng et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Deng, Zhantao
Jin, Jiewen
Zhao, Jianning
Xu, Haidong
Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
title Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
title_full Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
title_fullStr Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
title_full_unstemmed Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
title_short Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
title_sort cartilage defect treatments: with or without cells? mesenchymal stem cells or chondrocytes? traditional or matrix-assisted? a systematic review and meta-analyses
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4709777/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26839570
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9201492
work_keys_str_mv AT dengzhantao cartilagedefecttreatmentswithorwithoutcellsmesenchymalstemcellsorchondrocytestraditionalormatrixassistedasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT jinjiewen cartilagedefecttreatmentswithorwithoutcellsmesenchymalstemcellsorchondrocytestraditionalormatrixassistedasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT zhaojianning cartilagedefecttreatmentswithorwithoutcellsmesenchymalstemcellsorchondrocytestraditionalormatrixassistedasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT xuhaidong cartilagedefecttreatmentswithorwithoutcellsmesenchymalstemcellsorchondrocytestraditionalormatrixassistedasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses