Cell-Based Regenerative Strategies for Knee Cartilage Repair: A Scoping Review of Autologous Cartilage, Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, and Hybrid Approaches.
4 affiliations
- 1Department of Arthroscopy and Sports Traumatology, National Scientific Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after Academician N. D. Batpenov, Astana, Kazakhstan.
- 2Institute of Life Sciences, Karaganda Medical University, Karaganda, Kazakhstan.
- 3School of Medicine, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan.
- 4School of Medicine, Astana Medical University, Astana, Kazakhstan.
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.
Related
- Injectable autologous chondrocyte transplantation yields sustained clinical mid‐term improvement in acetabular cartilage defects in femoroacetabular impingement: A comparative analysis from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU)
- PTHrP suppresses BMP2-induced osteochondral differentiation and preserves cartilage phenotype in mesenchymal stem cells via inactivating PI3K-AKT signaling.
- Clonal articular cartilage progenitors outperform mesenchymal stromal cells in mitigating post-traumatic osteoarthritis.
- Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Spheroids as an Emerging Regenerative Strategy for Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head
- Repeated intra-articular injections of human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells at 3-week intervals enhanced cartilage preservation in a rabbit model of knee osteoarthritis
BibTeX
@article{suiindik2026cellbased,
title = {{Cell-Based Regenerative Strategies for Knee Cartilage Repair: A Scoping Review of Autologous Cartilage, Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, and Hybrid Approaches.}},
author = {Birzhan Suiindik and Kazybek Baktybergen and Yerik Raimagambetov and Gulzhanat Korganbekova and Dina Saginova and Arman Batpen and Karlygash Suiindik},
journal = {Cartilage},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1177/19476035261499465},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42893411},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Cell-Based Regenerative Strategies for Knee Cartilage Repair: A Scoping Review of Autologous Cartilage, Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, and Hybrid Approaches.
AU - Birzhan Suiindik
AU - Kazybek Baktybergen
AU - Yerik Raimagambetov
AU - Gulzhanat Korganbekova
AU - Dina Saginova
AU - Arman Batpen
AU - Karlygash Suiindik
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/18
JO - Cartilage
DO - 10.1177/19476035261499465
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42893411
AB - 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.
SN - 1947-6035
SN - 1947-6043
ER -