SVF
Level D· Preclinical EvidenceAnimal Study

Comparative repair efficacy of three mesenchymal stem cell sources in rat full-thickness talar cartilage defects.

Huang Z., Jiang B., Yang C., Zhao Z., Liu J., Chen X.

Animal Study on Osteoarthritis, Cartilage Damage, Ankle Injury, published in Sci Rep (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Animal Study
Journal
Sci Rep (2026)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
PMID
42420411
DOI
10.1038/s41598-026-61186-2

Abstract (original English)

Ankle cartilage damage frequently progresses to osteoarthritis (OA), which impairs patient quality of life and creates substantial socioeconomic burdens worldwide. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) offer a promising approach for cartilage regeneration; however, comparative data on the efficacy of MSCs from different tissue sources for ankle cartilage repair remains limited. As an exploratory preclinical study, this investigation aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMMSCs), adipose-derived MSCs (ADMSCs), and synovial fluid-derived MSCs (SFMSCs) in a rat model of full-thickness talar cartilage defects. Full-thickness talar cartilage defects were created by limited-depth drilling in 8-week-old male Sprague-Dawley rats (200-300 g). Animals were randomly assigned to a control group or three treatment groups receiving intra-articular injection of BMMSCs, ADMSCs, or SFMSCs. Outcomes were assessed using behavioral and gait tests, footprint analysis, Micro-CT imaging for subchondral bone parameters (BS/TV, Tb.N, Tb.Sp), ICRS macroscopic scoring, histopathological evaluation, and immunohistochemical staining for chondrogenic markers (Col II, FSTL1, SOX9, Smad3). In this exploratory analysis, the SFMSC group displayed comparatively better functional recovery in behavioral and gait measurements relative to other groups. The footprint length factor was signifi

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence comes from animal or laboratory studies and has not been confirmed in humans.

How we grade evidence
Ankle & FootOsteoarthritisCartilage DamageAnkle Injury
View on PubMedDOI

Related research