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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Stem Cells International |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9201492 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832566958888845312 |
|---|---|
| author | Zhantao Deng Jiewen Jin Jianning Zhao Haidong Xu |
| author_facet | Zhantao Deng Jiewen Jin Jianning Zhao Haidong Xu |
| author_sort | Zhantao Deng |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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 | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7a94906ed81543558a82916c0b093aec |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-966X 1687-9678 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Stem Cells International |
| spelling | doaj-art-7a94906ed81543558a82916c0b093aec2025-02-03T01:02:39ZengWileyStem Cells International1687-966X1687-96782016-01-01201610.1155/2016/92014929201492Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysesZhantao Deng0Jiewen Jin1Jianning Zhao2Haidong Xu3Department of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University, School of Medicine, 305 Zhongshan East Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210002, ChinaDepartment of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University, School of Medicine, 305 Zhongshan East Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210002, ChinaDepartment of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University, School of Medicine, 305 Zhongshan East Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210002, ChinaDepartment of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University, School of Medicine, 305 Zhongshan East Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210002, ChinaArticular 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9201492 |
| spellingShingle | Zhantao Deng Jiewen Jin Jianning Zhao Haidong Xu Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Stem Cells International |
| 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 |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9201492 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zhantaodeng cartilagedefecttreatmentswithorwithoutcellsmesenchymalstemcellsorchondrocytestraditionalormatrixassistedasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses AT jiewenjin cartilagedefecttreatmentswithorwithoutcellsmesenchymalstemcellsorchondrocytestraditionalormatrixassistedasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses AT jianningzhao cartilagedefecttreatmentswithorwithoutcellsmesenchymalstemcellsorchondrocytestraditionalormatrixassistedasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses AT haidongxu cartilagedefecttreatmentswithorwithoutcellsmesenchymalstemcellsorchondrocytestraditionalormatrixassistedasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses |