Cartilage Regeneration Using Human Umbilical Cord Blood Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Human umbilical-cord-blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hUCB-MSCs) have recently been used in clinical cartilage regeneration procedures with the expectation of improved regeneration capacity. However, the number of studies using hUCB-MSCs is still insufficient, and long-term follow-up results after use are insufficient, indicating the need for additional data and research. We have attempted to prove the efficacy and safety of hUCB-MSC treatment in a comprehensive analysis by including all subjects with knee articular cartilage defect or osteoarthritis who have undergone cartilage repair surgery using hUCB-MSCs. We conducted a meta-analysis and demonstrated efficacy and safety based on a systematic review. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. For this study, we searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library literature databases up to June 2022. A total of seven studies were included, and quality assessment was performed for each included study using the Newcastle−Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Statistical analysis was performed on the extracted pooled clinical outcome data, and subgroup analyses were completed. Results: A total of 570 patients were included in the analysis. In pooled analysis, the final follow-up International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score showed a significant increase (mean difference (MD), −32.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), −38.32 to −27.32; p < 0.00001) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 93%, p < 0.00001) compared to the preoperative score. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores at final follow-up were significantly decreased (MD, 30.73; 95% CI, 24.10−37.36; p < 0.00001) compared to the preoperative scores, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 95%, p < 0.00001). The visual analog scale (VAS) score at final follow-up was significantly decreased (MD, 4.81; 95% CI, 3.17−6.46; p < 0.00001) compared to the preoperative score, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98%, p < 0.00001). Two studies evaluated the modified Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (M-MOCART) score and confirmed sufficient improvement. In a study analyzing a group treated with bone marrow aspiration concentrate (BMAC), there was no significant difference in clinical outcome or M-MOCART score, and the post-treatment International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade increased. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrated the safety, efficacy, and quality of repaired cartilage following hUCB-MSC therapy. However, there was no clear difference in the comparison with BMAC. In the future, comparative studies with other stem cell therapies or cartilage repair procedures should be published to support the superior effect of hUCB-MSC therapy to improve treatment of cartilage defect or osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".