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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |