Search

Background: Umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (UCMSCs) have a considerable advantage and potential in treating for central nervous system diseases and have become a novel alternative treatment for spinal cord injury. This study aims to compare the neurological function outcome of stem cell transplantation, rehabilitation therapy, and self-healing for sequelae of spinal cord injury.Methods: Thirty-four cases of thoracolumbar spinal cord injury were randomly divided into three groups: the stem cell transplantation group was given CT-guided UCMSC transplantation twice; the rehabilitation group received rehabilitation therapy; and the blank control group did not receive any specific treatment. AIS grading, ASIA scoring, the manual muscle strength and muscle tension scale, and the Barthel index were used to evaluate the clinical outcome. Urodynamic examination was also performed for patients in the UCMSC group and the rehabilitation therapy group.Results: Seven of the ten patients in the UCMSC group had significant and stable improvement in movement, self-care ability, and muscular tension; five of the forteen patients (36%) in the rehabilitation group also had certain improvement in these aspects. Urodynamic examination demonstrated that patients in the UCMSC group exhibited an increase in maximum urinary flow rate and maximum bladder capacity, as well as a decrease in residue urine volume and maximum detrusor pressure. The rehabilitation group exhibited decreased maximum bladder capacity, but no perceptible change in maximum urinary flow rate, residue urine volume or maximum detrusor pressure.Conclusions: UCMSC transplantation can effectively improve neurological functional recovery after spinal cord injury, and its efficacy is superior to that of rehabilitation therapy and self-healing.Trial Registration: The present clinical study was registered at chictr.org (registration number: NCT01393977). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study compared the clinical efficacies, advantages and disadvantages of two transplantation approaches for treating spinal cord injury: open surgical exploration combined with local stem cell transplantation (referred to as open surgical transplantation) and local stem cell transplantation by CT-guided puncture (referred to as CT-guided transplantation)., Methods: The patients were divided into the following three groups to perform a retrospective controlled study: Group A included nine patients who underwent open surgical transplantation, Group B included nine patients who underwent CT-guided transplantation, and Group C included nine patients who did not receive stem cell transplantation. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score and the motor evoked potentials (MEP) examination were utilized to compare the differences in the clinical efficacies. The advantages and disadvantages of the two transplantation approaches were also compared, including the surgical risks, the possibility of repeating the operation, the interval between surgery and rehabilitation exercises and the scope of conditions suitable for the operation., Results: Whether evaluated by the AIS grading scale, the ASIA score or the MEP results, there were significant differences in the clinical efficacy among the three patient groups. Group B exhibited the best clinical outcome, followed by Group A, and Group C fared the worst. The CT-guided transplantation had the advantages of lower surgical risk, the potential to repeat the operations within a short time-frame and a short interval between surgery and rehabilitation exercise compared with the open surgical transplantation. The conditions that are suitable for CT-guided transplantation versus the conditions suitable for open surgical transplantation are not identical. The application scopes for the two approaches had their respective strengths., Conclusions: CT-guided stem cell transplantation was confirmed as a safe and effective approach to treat sequelae of spinal cord injury with the advantages of simpler operation, minimal invasion, less adverse reaction and quicker recovery., Clinical Trials Registration Number: ChiCTR-TNRC-12002477.