Allogenic Human Umbilical Cord Blood‐Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Are More Effective Than Bone Marrow Aspiration Concentrate for Cartilage Regeneration After High Tibial Osteotomy in Medial Unicompartmental Osteoarthritis of Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of cartilage regeneration between bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) augmentation and allogeneic human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cell (hUCB-MSCs) transplantation in high tibial osteotomy (HTO) with microfracture (MFX) for medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee in the young and active patient. METHODS: Between January 2015 and December 2019, the patients who underwent HTO and arthroscopy with MFX combined with BMAC or allogeneic hUCB-MSCs procedure for medial unicompartmental OA with kissing lesion, which was shown full-thickness cartilage defect (≥ International Cartilage Repair Society [ICRS] grade 3B) in medial femoral cartilage and medial tibial cartilage, were include in this study. Retrospectively we compared clinical outcomes, including Hospital for Special Surgery score, Knee Society Score (KSS) pain and function, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score between BMAC and hUCB-MSCs group at minimum of 1-year follow-up. Also, second-look arthroscopy was performed simultaneously with removal of the plate after complete bone union. Cartilage regeneration was graded by the ICRS grading system at second-look arthroscopy. Radiological measurement including hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, posterior tibial slope angle, and correction angle were assessed. RESULTS: Of 150 cases that underwent HTO with MFX combined with BMAC or allogeneic hUCB-MSCs procedure for medial unicompartmental OA, 123 cases underwent plate removal and second-look arthroscopy after a minimum of 1 year after the HTO surgery. Seventy-four cases were kissing lesion in medial femoral cartilage and medial tibial cartilage during initial HTO surgery. Finally, the BMAC group composed of 42 cases and hUCB-MSCs group composed of 32 cases were retrospectively identified in patients who had kissing lesions and second-look arthroscopies with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. At the final follow-up of mean 18.7 months (standard deviation = 4.6 months), clinical outcomes in both groups had improved. However, there were no significant differences between the IKDC, WOMAC, or KSS pain and function scores in the 2 groups (P > .05). At second-look arthroscopy, the ICRS grade was significantly better in the hUCB-MSC group than in the BMAC group in both medial femoral and medial tibial cartilage (P = .001 for both). The average ICRS grade of the BMAC group improved from 3.9 before surgery to 2.8 after surgery. The average ICRS grade of the hUBC-MSC group improved from 3.9 before surgery to 2.0 after surgery. Radiological findings comparing postoperative HKA angle, posterior tibial slope angle, and correction angle showed no significant differences between the groups (P > .05). Therefore it was found that the postoperative correction amount did not affect the postoperative cartilage regeneration results. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the hUCB-MSC procedure was more effective than the BMAC procedure for cartilage regeneration in medial unicompartmental knee OA even though the clinical outcomes improved regardless of which treatment was administered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".