BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspiration concentrate (BMAC) has gained acceptance as a safe orthobiologic for treating osteoarthritis (OA), despite lacking robust supporting evidence. Although several publications have documented the use of BMAC in OA, evidence confirming its unequivocal efficacy remains limited. METHODS: This review aims to summarize the current clinical evidence regarding BMAC as a therapeutic for OA, while also presenting the author’s perspective. Sixteen studies were reviewed, including ten randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies. RESULTS: From the review of existing literature, BMAC injections do not appear to significantly improve pain and function compared to conventional therapies such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids, although some studies report a longer duration of effectiveness. Furthermore, the evidence for structural improvement, which was the original rationale for cell therapy, is seldom reported. CONCLUSION In light of these findings, it is suggested that high-quality data from a large patient cohort is needed to determine the role of BMAC injections in OA treatment and address reimbursement issues. From the author’s perspective, the introduction of a national registry system that provides valuable information on the cost-effectiveness of various orthopedic procedures may offer a solution.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspiration concentrate (BMAC) has gained acceptance as a safe orthobiologic for treating osteoarthritis (OA), despite lacking robust supporting evidence. Although several publications have documented the use of BMAC in OA, evidence confirming its unequivocal efficacy remains limited. METHODS: This review aims to summarize the current clinical evidence regarding BMAC as a therapeutic for OA, while also presenting the author’s perspective. Sixteen studies were reviewed, including ten randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies. RESULTS: From the review of existing literature, BMAC injections do not appear to significantly improve pain and function compared to conventional therapies such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids, although some studies report a longer duration of effectiveness. Furthermore, the evidence for structural improvement, which was the original rationale for cell therapy, is seldom reported. CONCLUSION In light of these findings, it is suggested that high-quality data from a large patient cohort is needed to determine the role of BMAC injections in OA treatment and address reimbursement issues. From the author’s perspective, the introduction of a national registry system that provides valuable information on the cost-effectiveness of various orthopedic procedures may offer a solution.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspiration concentrate (BMAC) has gained acceptance as a safe orthobiologic for treating osteoarthritis (OA), despite lacking robust supporting evidence. Although several publications have documented the use of BMAC in OA, evidence confirming its unequivocal efficacy remains limited. METHODS: This review aims to summarize the current clinical evidence regarding BMAC as a therapeutic for OA, while also presenting the author’s perspective. Sixteen studies were reviewed, including ten randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies. RESULTS: From the review of existing literature, BMAC injections do not appear to significantly improve pain and function compared to conventional therapies such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids, although some studies report a longer duration of effectiveness. Furthermore, the evidence for structural improvement, which was the original rationale for cell therapy, is seldom reported. CONCLUSION In light of these findings, it is suggested that high-quality data from a large patient cohort is needed to determine the role of BMAC injections in OA treatment and address reimbursement issues. From the author’s perspective, the introduction of a national registry system that provides valuable information on the cost-effectiveness of various orthopedic procedures may offer a solution.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspiration concentrate (BMAC) has gained acceptance as a safe orthobiologic for treating osteoarthritis (OA), despite lacking robust supporting evidence. Although several publications have documented the use of BMAC in OA, evidence confirming its unequivocal efficacy remains limited. METHODS: This review aims to summarize the current clinical evidence regarding BMAC as a therapeutic for OA, while also presenting the author’s perspective. Sixteen studies were reviewed, including ten randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies. RESULTS: From the review of existing literature, BMAC injections do not appear to significantly improve pain and function compared to conventional therapies such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids, although some studies report a longer duration of effectiveness. Furthermore, the evidence for structural improvement, which was the original rationale for cell therapy, is seldom reported. CONCLUSION In light of these findings, it is suggested that high-quality data from a large patient cohort is needed to determine the role of BMAC injections in OA treatment and address reimbursement issues. From the author’s perspective, the introduction of a national registry system that provides valuable information on the cost-effectiveness of various orthopedic procedures may offer a solution.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspiration concentrate (BMAC) has gained acceptance as a safe orthobiologic for treating osteoarthritis (OA), despite lacking robust supporting evidence. Although several publications have documented the use of BMAC in OA, evidence confirming its unequivocal efficacy remains limited. METHODS: This review aims to summarize the current clinical evidence regarding BMAC as a therapeutic for OA, while also presenting the author’s perspective. Sixteen studies were reviewed, including ten randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies. RESULTS: From the review of existing literature, BMAC injections do not appear to significantly improve pain and function compared to conventional therapies such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids, although some studies report a longer duration of effectiveness. Furthermore, the evidence for structural improvement, which was the original rationale for cell therapy, is seldom reported. CONCLUSION In light of these findings, it is suggested that high-quality data from a large patient cohort is needed to determine the role of BMAC injections in OA treatment and address reimbursement issues. From the author’s perspective, the introduction of a national registry system that provides valuable information on the cost-effectiveness of various orthopedic procedures may offer a solution.

Osteoarthritis (OA) has been investigated as one of important target diseases for regenerative medicine. The concept of early OA has recently emerged under the assumption that if OA is detected and intervened early, progression of OA might be arrested or delayed before irreversible destruction of the joint occurs. This concept also matters in regenerative medicine for OA because new regenerative technologies can work better when joint damage is minimal. Diagnostic criteria for early OA have been suggested in this background to find a group of patients who have a higher possibility of developing full-blown OA. However, as currently suggested criteria of early OA are mostly expert opinions lacking higher level of evidence, clinical validations are necessary to prove their value in patient care. While new treatment methods that can suppress or prevent symptoms at an early stage of OA before progressive and irreversible changes occur are being developed, detailed definition and classification of early OA agreed upon by major stakeholders in OA field and validated by prospective studies are necessary to prove the efficacy of these methods. As clinical outcome of regenerative treatment is related to patient characteristics and the status of the whole joint, it is of critical significance to predict which patient will progress and who will be responsive to regenerative treatment. While diagnostic criteria for early OA should be highly sensitive and applicable without employing biomarkers or magnetic resonance imaging, a subclassification and comprehensive endotyping /phenotyping using these techniques might be needed to detect the population who would be responsive to regenerative medicine.

Direct reprogramming/direct conversion/transdifferentiation is a process that induces conversion between completely different matured (differentiated) cells in higher organisms. Unlike the process of reprogramming of differentiated cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and re-differentiation into the desired cell types, differentiated cells undergo the conversion into another type of differentiated cells without going through the iPSCs state. Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis that causes a significant deterioration in patients’ quality of life. The high prevalence of OA as well as the current lack of disease-modifying drugs has led to a rise in regenerative strategy for OA treatment. Regenerative therapy in OA started with the concept of engraftment of the administered cells within the cartilage lesion and differentiation to chondrocytes after the engraftment. However, recent studies show that cells, particularly when injected in suspension, rapidly undergo apoptosis after exerting a transient paracrine effect. In this perspective review, the general overview and current status of direct conversion are introduced along with the conceptual strategy and future directions for possible application of regenerative therapy using stem cells in OA. In vivo direct conversion may open a new stage of regenerative medicine for OA treatment. Recent advances in in vivo gene transfer and smart biomaterials can bring the concept into reality in near future. Direct conversion can be a new type of treatment technology that has the potential to overcome the limitations of current cell therapy.

Direct reprogramming/direct conversion/transdifferentiation is a process that induces conversion between completely different matured (differentiated) cells in higher organisms. Unlike the process of reprogramming of differentiated cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and re-differentiation into the desired cell types, differentiated cells undergo the conversion into another type of differentiated cells without going through the iPSCs state. Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis that causes a significant deterioration in patients’ quality of life. The high prevalence of OA as well as the current lack of disease-modifying drugs has led to a rise in regenerative strategy for OA treatment. Regenerative therapy in OA started with the concept of engraftment of the administered cells within the cartilage lesion and differentiation to chondrocytes after the engraftment. However, recent studies show that cells, particularly when injected in suspension, rapidly undergo apoptosis after exerting a transient paracrine effect. In this perspective review, the general overview and current status of direct conversion are introduced along with the conceptual strategy and future directions for possible application of regenerative therapy using stem cells in OA. In vivo direct conversion may open a new stage of regenerative medicine for OA treatment. Recent advances in in vivo gene transfer and smart biomaterials can bring the concept into reality in near future. Direct conversion can be a new type of treatment technology that has the potential to overcome the limitations of current cell therapy.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis and causes a significant deterioration in patients’ quality of life. The high prevalence of OA as well as the current lack of disease-modifying drugs led to a rise in regenerative medicine efforts. The hope is that this will provide a treatment modality with the ability to alter the course of OA via structural modifications of damaged articular cartilage (AC). Regenerative therapy in OA starts with the concept that administered cells may engraft to a lesion site and differentiate into chondrocytes. However, recent studies show that cells, particularly when injected in suspension, rapidly undergo apoptosis after exerting a transient paracrine effect. If the injected stem cells do not lead to structural improvements of a diseased joint, the high cost of cell therapy for OA cannot be justified, particularly when compared with other injection therapeutics such as corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid. Long-term survival of implanted cells that offer prolonged paracrine effects or possible engraftment is essential for a successful cell therapy that will offer durable structural improvements. In this perspective review, the history and current status of regenerative therapy in OA are summarized along with the conceptual strategy and future directionsfor a successful regenerative therapy that can provide structural modifications in OA.

Tendons are structures that connect muscles to the bones in our body and transmit the force generated by contraction of the muscles to the bones. Ligaments are structures that connect bones to bones, with histological properties similar to tendons. In tendon and ligament tissue, there are very small amounts of cells similar to mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) called tendon stem/progenitor cells (TSPCs), or tenogenic stem cells. While the role of specific growth factors and transcription factors is well established in the osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiation of stem cells, a consensus has not been established for tenogenic differentiation. Injuries to tendons and ligaments are very common, but natural healing is very slow and inefficient due to limited vascularization. Currently, there is no adequate method for restoring extensive tendon or ligament defects. Procedures addressing the unmet need for regeneration of these tissues are needed. In this review, the current knowledge, as well as the authors’ ideas and perspective on stem cell and regenerative medicine for tendon and ligament defects are presented.