Search

We investigated the impact of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy on treating bilateral human hip osteonecrosis, analyzing 908 cases. This study assesses factors such as tissue source and cell count, comparing core decompression with various cell therapies. This research emphasizes bone repair according to pre-treatment conditions and the specificities of cell therapy in osteonecrosis repair, indicating a potential for improved bone repair strategies in hips without femoral head collapse. This study utilized a single-center retrospective analysis to investigate the efficacy of cellular approaches in the bone repair of osteonecrosis. It examined the impact on bone repair of tissue source (autologous bone marrow concentrate, allogeneic expanded, autologous expanded), cell quantity (from none in core decompression alone to millions in cell therapy), and osteonecrosis stage and volume. Excluding hips with femoral head collapse, it focused on patients who had bilateral hip osteonecrosis, both pre-operative and post-operative MRIs, and a follow-up of over five years. The analysis divided these patients into seven groups based on match control treatment variations in bilateral hip osteonecrosis, primarily investigating the outcomes between core decompression, washing effect, and different tissue sources of MSCs. Younger patients (

Tendon injuries, a common musculoskeletal issue, usually result in adhesions to the surrounding tissue, that will impact functional recovery. Macrophages, particularly through their M1 and M2 polarizations, play a pivotal role in the inflammatory and healing phases of tendon repair. In this review, we explore the role of macrophage polarization in tendon healing, focusing on insights from animal models. The review delves into the complex interplay of macrophages in tendon pathology, detailing how various macrophage phenotypes contribute to both healing and adhesion formation. It also explores the potential of modulating macrophage activity to enhance tendon repair and minimize adhesions. With advancements in understanding macrophage behavior and the development of innovative biomaterials, this review highlights promising therapeutic strategies for tendon injuries.

Purpose: Controversy exists on the best fixation for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Non-cemented fixation has been theorized to improve patient outcomes and longevity of implantation but no study has focused on comparison between cemented or cementless posterior-stabilized implants despite being the most commonly or second most frequently utilized implant in most total knee replacement registries. Methods: Inclusion criteria with observational and interventional papers, and review articles that focused on patients with cementless and cemented PS TKAs were used to analyze outcomes such as implant survivorship, complication, or revision rates. Using a combination of keywords, a systematic search was performed on Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library for Meta-Analysis. Results: When using the specified criteria, only 8 studies were selected for full-text analysis and meta-analysis after eliminating screening duplicates, titles, and abstracts without full-text access. These eight studies contain 1652 patients, 693 in the non-cemented Group, and 959 in the cemented total knee prosthesis Group. The meta-analysis revealed the advantage of cementless fixation over cemented fixation in implant survivorship, with 0.6% and 2.6% of aseptic loosening in each Group. The cumulative survival at 12 years was 97.4% for the cementless Group and 89.2% for the cemented Group. The subgroup with a stem showed a positive outcome for cementless fixation over cemented fixation regarding implant survivorship. No differences between the cemented and cementless TKAs were observed in patient-reported outcomes, revision rates, or radiolucent line development. Conclusion: We observed comparable rates for cemented and cementless posterior-stabilized TKAs over a medium-term follow-up period.

Purpose: The dual mobility cup (DMC) reduces the dislocation rates in total hip arthroplasty (THA). DMC systems include anatomical (non-modular or monoblock) (ADM) and modular dual mobility (MDM) components (Stryker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ, USA). This review aims to assess differences between these two types of DMC implants concerning dislocation and revision rates, as well as patient-reported outcomes. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reports data from patients undergoing primary THA using MDM and/or ADM implants. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we analyzed articles from Science Direct/Scopus, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We compared dislocation rates, revisions for any reason, aseptic loosening, infections, fractures, and functional outcomes between ADM and MDM components. Results: Eleven studies were considered eligible for further analysis. A total of 3369 patients (mean age = 65.4 years) underwent primary THA, including 3386 DMC implants. The mean follow-up for the MDM and ADM groups was 2.9 years and 3.9 years, respectively. The study revealed one dislocation in the MDM and none in the ADM. By proportion metanalysis, the review did not show statistical differences in all-cause revisions (p = 0.93, [CI [0.01;0.02]) or periprosthetic fractures (p = 0.18, CI [0.01;0.02]). Conclusions: MDM and ADM systems, both, represent safe DM options regarding dislocation, all-causes revisions and functional outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated the impact of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy on treating bilateral human hip osteonecrosis, analyzing 908 cases. This study assesses factors such as tissue source and cell count, comparing core decompression with various cell therapies. This research emphasizes bone repair according to pre-treatment conditions and the specificities of cell therapy in osteonecrosis repair, indicating a potential for improved bone repair strategies in hips without femoral head collapse. This study utilized a single-center retrospective analysis to investigate the efficacy of cellular approaches in the bone repair of osteonecrosis. It examined the impact on bone repair of tissue source (autologous bone marrow concentrate, allogeneic expanded, autologous expanded), cell quantity (from none in core decompression alone to millions in cell therapy), and osteonecrosis stage and volume. Excluding hips with femoral head collapse, it focused on patients who had bilateral hip osteonecrosis, both pre-operative and post-operative MRIs, and a follow-up of over five years. The analysis divided these patients into seven groups based on match control treatment variations in bilateral hip osteonecrosis, primarily investigating the outcomes between core decompression, washing effect, and different tissue sources of MSCs. Younger patients (<30 years) demonstrated significantly better repair volumes, particularly in stage II lesions, than older counterparts. Additionally, bone repair volume increased with the number of implanted MSCs up to 1,000,000, beyond which no additional benefits were observed. No significant difference was observed in repair outcomes between different sources of MSCs (BMAC, allogenic, or expanded cells). The study also highlighted that a 'washing effect' was beneficial, particularly for larger-volume osteonecrosis when combined with core decompression. Partial bone repair was the more frequent event observed, while total bone repair of osteonecrosis was rare. The volume and stage of osteonecrosis, alongside the number of injected cells, significantly affected treatment outcomes. In summary, this study provides comprehensive insights into the effectiveness and variables influencing the use of mesenchymal stem cells in treating human hip osteonecrosis. It emphasizes the potential of cell therapy while acknowledging the complexity and variability of results based on factors such as age, cell count, and disease stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]