Augmented cartilage regeneration by implantation of cellular versus acellular implants after bone marrow stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Bone marrow stimulation may be applied to regenerate focal cartilage defects, but generally results in transient clinical improvement and formation of fibrocartilage rather than hyaline cartilage. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine strive to develop new solutions to regenerate hyaline cartilage tissue. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview of current literature and assesses the efficacy of articular cartilage regeneration by implantation of cell-laden versus cell-free biomaterials in the knee and ankle joint in animals after bone marrow stimulation. PubMed and EMBASE (via OvidSP) were systematically searched using tissue engineering, cartilage and animals search strategies. Included were primary studies in which cellular and acellular biomaterials were implanted after applying bone marrow stimulation in the knee or ankle joint in healthy animals. Study characteristics were tabulated and outcome data were collected for meta-analysis for studies applying semi-quantitative histology as outcome measure (117 studies). Cartilage regeneration was expressed on an absolute 0-100% scale and random effects meta-analyses were performed. Implantation of cellular biomaterials significantly improved cartilage regeneration by 18.6% compared to acellular biomaterials. No significant differences were found between biomaterials loaded with stem cells

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.