Cartilage Defect Treatments: With or without Cells? Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Chondrocytes? Traditional or Matrix-Assisted? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
Table 4
Characteristics of studies that compared MSCI with other cartilage treatments.
There was significant improvement in the patients’ quality of life after cartilage repair in both groups. However, there was no difference between the MSCI and the ACI group in terms of clinical outcomes except for Physical Role Functioning, with a greater improvement over time in the MSCI group.
There were no clinically significant adverse events reported through the course of the study. Both groups showed significant improvement in all scores. No significant difference in improvement between the two groups.
Both groups showed significant improvement in HSS scores. The difference in clinical improvement between the groups was not significant, the arthroscopic and histological grading score was better in the cell-transplanted group than in the cell-free control group.
Both groups showed significant improvement in all scores, but there was no significant difference in improvement between the two groups, except for the IKDC subjective score, which favored the MSCI group.
FU: follow-up; CS: cohort study; ICRS: International Cartilage Repair score; HSS: Hospital for Special Surgery score; IKDC: International Knee Documentation Committee; SF-36: Short-Form-36 Health Survey; VAS: Visual Analogue scale; TAS: Tegner Activity Score; MF: microfracture; KOOS: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; MSCI: mesenchymal stem cell implantation.