Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38599194›Full record

ReviewCells, tissues, organs2024

Considering the Cellular Landscape in Marrow Stimulation Techniques for Cartilage Repair.

Maddie Hasson, Lorenzo M Fernandes, Hanna Solomon, Tristan Pepper, Nicholas L Huffman, Saitheja A Pucha, Jason T Bariteau, Jarred M Kaiser, Jay M Patel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, tissues, organs, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Maddie HassonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Lorenzo M FernandesDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Hanna SolomonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Tristan PepperDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Nicholas L HuffmanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Saitheja A PuchaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Jason T BariteauDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Jarred M KaiserDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Jay M PatelDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Funding

UTSA ESTEEMED ProgramR25EB027605 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO · PI ABU-LAIL, NEHAL IBRAHIM · 2019 to 2024
$1.6M
NIBIB NIH HHS R25 EB027605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMarrow stimulation is a common reparative approach to treat injuries to cartilage and other soft tissues (e.g., rotator cuff). It involves the recruitment of bone marrow elements and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) into the defect, theoretically initiating a regenerative process. However, the resulting repair tissue is often weak and susceptible to deterioration with time. The populations of cells at the marrow stimulation site (beyond MSCs), and their contribution to inflammation, vascularity, and fibrosis, may play a role in quality of the repair tissue. SUMMARY: In this review, we accomplish three goals: (1) systematically review clinical trials on the augmentation of marrow stimulation and evaluate their assumptions on the biological elements recruited; (2) detail the cellular populations in bone marrow and their impact on healing; and (3) highlight emerging technologies and approaches that could better guide these specific cell populations towards enhanced cartilage or soft tissue formation. KEY MESSAGES: We found that most clinical trials do not account for cell heterogeneity, nor do they specify the regenerative element recruited, and those that do typically utilize descriptions such as "clots," "elements," and "blood." Furthermore, our review of bone marrow cell populations demonstrates a dramatically heterogenous cell population, including hematopoietic cells, immune cells, fibroblasts, macrophages, and only a small population of MSCs. Finally, the field has developed numerous innovative techniques to enhance the chondrogenic potential (and reduce the anti-regenerative impacts) of these various cell types. We hope this review will guide approaches that account for cellular heterogeneity and improve marrow stimulation techniques to treat chondral defects.

Indexed as

Bone MarrowCartilageWound HealingAnimalsBone Marrow CellsHumansMesenchymal Stem CellsMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationBone marrowCartilage repairCell heterogeneityMesenchymal stem cellsMicrofracture

Identifiers

PMID38599194
PMCPMC11633897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.