Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate versus Human Umbilical Cord Blood-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Combined Cartilage Regeneration Procedure in Patients Undergoing High Tibial Osteotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: Cartilage regeneration using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has been attempted to improve articular cartilage regeneration in varus knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergoing high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and human umbilical cord blood-derived MSCs (hUCB-MSCs) have been reported to be effective. However, whether BMAC is superior to hUCB-MSCs remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the clinical efficacy of cartilage repair procedures with BMAC or hUCB-MSCs in patients undergoing HTO. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted using three global databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, for studies in which the clinical outcomes after BMAC or hUCB-MSCs were used in patients undergoing HTO for varus knee OA. Data extraction, quality control, and meta-analysis were performed. To compare the clinical efficacy of BMAC and hUCB-MSCs, reported clinical outcome assessments and second-look arthroscopic findings were analyzed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The present review included seven studies of 499 patients who received either BMAC (BMAC group, n = 169) or hUCB-MSCs (hUCB-MSC group, n = 330). Improved clinical outcomes were found in both BMAC and hUCB-MSC groups; however, a significant difference was not observed between procedures (International Knee Documentation Committee score; p = 0.91, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index; p = 0.05, Knee Society Score (KSS) Pain; p = 0.85, KSS Function; p = 0.37). On second-look arthroscopy, the hUCB-MSC group showed better International Cartilage Repair Society Cartilage Repair Assessment grade compared with the BMAC group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Both BMAC and hUCB-MSCs with HTO improved clinical outcomes in varus knee OA patients, and there was no difference in clinical outcomes between them. However, hUCB-MSCs were more effective in articular cartilage regeneration than BMAC augmentation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".