摘要
AIM To examine the evidence behind the use of concentrated bone marrow aspirate(c BMA) in cartilage, bone, and tendon repair; establish proof of concept for the use of cB MA in these biologic environments; and provide the level and quality of evidence substantiating the use of cB MA in the clinical setting.METHODS We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Knowledge databases were screened for the use of cB MA in the repair of cartilage, bone, and tendon repair. We extracted data on tissue type, cB MA preparation, cB MA concentration, study methods, outcomes, and level of evidence and reported the results in tables and text.RESULTS A total of 36 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in this review. Thirty-one of 36(86%) studies reported the method of centrifugation and preparation of cB MA with 15(42%) studies reporting either a cell concentration or an increase from baseline. Variation of c BMA application was seen amongst the studies evaluated. Twenty-one of 36(58%) were level of evidence Ⅳ, 12/36(33%) were level of evidence Ⅲ, and 3/36(8%) were level of evidence Ⅱ. Studies evaluated full thickness chondral lesions(7 studies), osteochondral lesions(10 studies), osteoarthritis(5 studies), nonunion or fracture(9 studies), or tendon injuries(5 studies). Significant clinical improvement with the presence of hyaline-like values and lower incidence of fibrocartilage on T2 mapping was found in patients receiving cB MA in the treatment of cartilaginous lesions. Bone consolidation and time to bone union was improved in patients receiving cB MA. Enhanced healingrates, improved quality of the repair surface on ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, and a decreased risk of re-rupture was demonstrated in patients receiving cB MA as an adjunctive treatment in tendon repair. CONCLUSION The current literature demonstrates the potential benefits of utilizing c BMA for the repair of cartilaginous lesions, bony defects, and tendon injuries in the clinical setting. This study also demonstrates discrepancies between the literature with regards to various methods of centrifugation, variable cell count concentrations, and lack of standardized outcome measures. Future studies should attempt to examine the integral factors necessary for tissue regeneration and renewal including stem cells, growth factors and a biologic scaffold.
AIM To examine the evidence behind the use of concentrated bone marrow aspirate(c BMA) in cartilage, bone, and tendon repair; establish proof of concept for the use of cB MA in these biologic environments; and provide the level and quality of evidence substantiating the use of cB MA in the clinical setting.METHODS We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Knowledge databases were screened for the use of cB MA in the repair of cartilage, bone, and tendon repair. We extracted data on tissue type, cB MA preparation, cB MA concentration, study methods, outcomes, and level of evidence and reported the results in tables and text.RESULTS A total of 36 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in this review. Thirty-one of 36(86%) studies reported the method of centrifugation and preparation of cB MA with 15(42%) studies reporting either a cell concentration or an increase from baseline. Variation of c BMA application was seen amongst the studies evaluated. Twenty-one of 36(58%) were level of evidence Ⅳ, 12/36(33%) were level of evidence Ⅲ, and 3/36(8%) were level of evidence Ⅱ. Studies evaluated full thickness chondral lesions(7 studies), osteochondral lesions(10 studies), osteoarthritis(5 studies), nonunion or fracture(9 studies), or tendon injuries(5 studies). Significant clinical improvement with the presence of hyaline-like values and lower incidence of fibrocartilage on T2 mapping was found in patients receiving cB MA in the treatment of cartilaginous lesions. Bone consolidation and time to bone union was improved in patients receiving cB MA. Enhanced healingrates, improved quality of the repair surface on ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, and a decreased risk of re-rupture was demonstrated in patients receiving cB MA as an adjunctive treatment in tendon repair. CONCLUSION The current literature demonstrates the potential benefits of utilizing c BMA for the repair of cartilaginous lesions, bony defects, and tendon injuries in the clinical setting. This study also demonstrates discrepancies between the literature with regards to various methods of centrifugation, variable cell count concentrations, and lack of standardized outcome measures. Future studies should attempt to examine the integral factors necessary for tissue regeneration and renewal including stem cells, growth factors and a biologic scaffold.
