4.7 Review

Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Are They a Good Therapeutic Strategy for Osteoarthritis?

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms19071926

关键词

osteoarthritis; mesenchymal stem cells; regenerative medicine

资金

  1. Garcia Cugat foundation CEU-UCH chair
  2. CEU Cardenal Herrera University
  3. CEU Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major cause of disability in elderly population around the world. More than one-third of people over 65 years old shows either clinical or radiological evidence of OA. There is no effective treatment for this degenerative disease, due to the limited capacity for spontaneous cartilage regeneration. Regarding the use of regenerative therapies, it has been reported that one option to restore degenerated cartilage are adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ASCs). The purpose of this review is to describe and compare the efficacy of ASCs versus other therapies in OA. Methods: Recent studies have shown that ASCs exert paracrine effects protecting against degenerative changes in chondrocytes. According to the above, we have carried out a review of the literature using a combination of osteoarthritis, stem cells, and regenerative therapies as keywords. Results: Conventional pharmacological therapies for OA treatment are considered before the surgical option, however, they do not stop the progression of the disease. Moreover, total joint replacement is not recommended for patients under 55 years, and high tibia osteotomy (HTO) is a viable solution to address lower limb malalignment with concomitant OA, but some complications have been described. In recent years, the use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as a treatment strategy for OA is increasing considerably, thanks to their capacity to improve symptoms together with joint functionality and, therefore, the patients' quality of life. Conclusions: ASC therapy has a positive effect on patients with OA, although there is limited evidence and little long-term follow-up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据