Regenerative medicine: what can it do for me?

Abstract

damaged or pathological tissue using mesenchymal cells or platelet rich plasma (PRP). 17 Treatment with PRP has been the frontrunner as a source for regenerative cells as studies with level 1 evidence have highlighted its effectiveness in treating knee OA and lateral spondylopathy. Other sources including bone marrow and adipose tissue have been explored as possible sources of mesenchymal stem cells but have not been able to demonstrate greater effectiveness than PRP formulations. Bone marrow stem cells are concentrated into what is known as bone marrow aspirate concentrate. The formulation has been studied, but hasn’t demonstrated level 1 evidence of effectiveness in musculoskeletal injury treatment. Abstract Objectives: Patients now have longer life expectancies and more active lifestyles which is driving the growth and use of regenerative medicine. Definitions of regenerative medicine (RM) vary, with much of the public having an incomplete understanding of what regenerative medicine means or the science behind these therapies. The purpose of this study was to assess patient perceptions and understanding of the role of regenerative medicine in treating musculoskeletal problems. Methods: This cross-sectional study consisted of an anonymous self-administered survey designed to assess patient perceptions, knowledge and attitudes toward regenerative medicine and its application in sports medicine of 150 participants. The demographic information and participant’s knowledge and conceptions of regenerative medicine were surveyed from patients in an orthopedic surgery department at a single institution. Descriptive statistics were used to report survey data. Analyses were performed based on demographic variables using independent t-test and an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Of the survey takers, 70% viewed RM therapies positively. Participants with a positive view scored significantly higher in all aspects of the survey including effectiveness in the clinical setting (p<0.05) and the likelihood to use or recommend RM therapies (p<0.05). Older Participants (over 54years) scored higher for basic knowledge on RM (3.63; p=0.02). Participants with personal experience with RM had a more positive response when asked if it helps their condition (3.87 vs. 3.38; p=0.01) and were more comfortable recommending it to others (3.83 vs. 3.41; p=0.04). Conclusion: Overall, participants had a moderate level of understanding and positive perception of the effectiveness of RM therapies. Our results showed participants had a positive view of these treatment modalities despite the literature not supporting the effectiveness of these therapies. More research should be dedicated to this area of medicine given the public interest and desire for RM treatments.