Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42893411›Full record

ReviewCartilage2026

Cell-Based Regenerative Strategies for Knee Cartilage Repair: A Scoping Review of Autologous Cartilage, Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, and Hybrid Approaches.

Birzhan Suiindik, Kazybek Baktybergen, Yerik Raimagambetov, Gulzhanat Korganbekova, Dina Saginova, Arman Batpen, Karlygash Suiindik

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cartilage, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Birzhan SuiindikDepartment of Arthroscopy and Sports Traumatology, National Scientific Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after Academician N. D. Batpenov, Astana, Kazakhstan.ORCID 0009-0005-1835-8785
Kazybek BaktybergenSchool of Medicine, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan.ORCID 0009-0001-0610-9571
Yerik RaimagambetovDepartment of Arthroscopy and Sports Traumatology, National Scientific Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after Academician N. D. Batpenov, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Gulzhanat KorganbekovaDepartment of Arthroscopy and Sports Traumatology, National Scientific Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after Academician N. D. Batpenov, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Dina SaginovaDepartment of Arthroscopy and Sports Traumatology, National Scientific Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after Academician N. D. Batpenov, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Arman BatpenDepartment of Arthroscopy and Sports Traumatology, National Scientific Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after Academician N. D. Batpenov, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Karlygash SuiindikSchool of Medicine, Astana Medical University, Astana, Kazakhstan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundCell-based approaches for focal knee cartilage repair include cartilage- and chondrocyte-based procedures, mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC)-based strategies, and combinations of these approaches. However, the amount and type of evidence available for these treatments differ considerably.ObjectiveTo map the clinical and preclinical evidence for cell-based regenerative strategies used for focal chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee, compare cartilage-based, MSC-based, and hybrid approaches, and identify areas where evidence remains limited.MethodsThis scoping review was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published from January 2000 to December 2025. Eligible studies evaluated in vivo cartilage-derived, MSC-based, or hybrid regenerative interventions for focal knee chondral or osteochondral defects. Two reviewers independently screened the records and charted study characteristics and outcomes using a standardized form. Because of substantial heterogeneity in interventions, study designs, models, outcomes, and follow-up periods, the findings were summarized descriptively rather than pooled.ResultsSeventy-five publications met the eligibility criteria. Cartilage-based approaches were evaluated in 29 publications, including 21 clinical and 8 preclinical studies. MSC-based approaches were evaluated in 43 publications, including 12 clinical and 31 preclinical studies. Three publications examined hybrid strategies, including two clinical reports from the same 35-patient cohort and one preclinical study. Cartilage-based evidence was therefore mainly clinical (72.4%), whereas MSC-based evidence was mainly preclinical (72.1%). Clinical studies used a wide range of outcome measures, and comparative studies did not show a consistent advantage of one more complex cell-based approach over another. Evidence for hybrid strategies remained limited to one preclinical study and one clinical programme reported at 18 months and 5 years.ConclusionThe available evidence differs considerably across cartilage-based, MSC-based, and hybrid approaches. Cartilage-based techniques have been studied more extensively in clinical settings, whereas most MSC research remains preclinical. Hybrid cartilage and MSC strategies have been investigated in only a small number of studies. A framework based on structural or chondrogenic input, biological signaling, and the combination of these components may be useful for organizing future research, but it should currently be considered a hypothesis rather than a validated treatment model.

Indexed as

autologous chondrocyteshybrid regenerative strategiesknee cartilage regenerationknee cartilage repairmesenchymal stromal cellsminced cartilageMSCsosteochondral defectsscoping review

Identifiers

PMID42893411
PMCPMC13677982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.