Five-Year Outcomes After Implantation of a Scaffold-Free Tissue-Engineered Construct Generated From Autologous Synovial Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Repair of Knee Chondral Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In an earlier study, a scaffold-free tissue-engineered construct (TEC) derived from autologous synovial membrane mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) was developed and demonstrated to be safe and effective for cartilage repair at 2 years postoperatively. Purpose: To investigate clinical outcomes and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings at 5 years after implantation. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: ) on the medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, or femoral groove. Synovial MSCs were isolated from arthroscopic biopsy specimens and cultured to develop a TEC that matched the lesion size. The TECs were then implanted into chondral defects without fixation and assessed at up to 5 years postoperatively. The patients were clinically evaluated using the visual analog scale for pain, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. An MRI scan evaluation was also performed for morphologic and compositional quality of the repair tissue at both 2 and 5 years of follow-up. Results: All clinical scores were significantly improved from the preoperative evaluation to the 2- and 5-year follow-ups and the results were stable over time. The MRI scan evaluation showed cartilage defects filled with newly generated tissues with good tissue integration to adjacent host cartilage over time. The cartilage thickness and surface smoothness of the repair cartilage were maintained up to 5 years postoperatively. The MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) 2.0 Knee Scores remained high at 5 years, although the total points decreased slightly. Conclusion: The results highlight the efficacy and feasibility of autologous scaffold-free TEC derived from synovial MSCs for regenerative cartilage repair via a sutureless and simple implantation procedure, showing good clinical outcomes and MRI findings with stable results at midterm follow-up. Further follow-up will be needed to assess the long-term quality of the repair tissue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".