Microfracture surgery may be applied to treat cartilage defects. During the procedure the subchondral bone is penetrated, allowing bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells to migrate towards the defect site and form new cartilage tissue. Microfracture surgery generally results in the formation of mechanically inferior fibrocartilage. As a result, this technique offers only temporary clinical improvement. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine may improve the outcome of microfracture surgery. Filling the subchondral defect with a biomaterial may provide a template for the formation of new hyaline cartilage tissue. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the current evidence for the efficacy of cartilage regeneration in preclinical models using acellular biomaterials implanted after marrow stimulating techniques (microfracturing and subchondral drilling) compared to the natural healing response of defects. The review aims to provide new insights into the most effective biomaterials, to provide an overview of currently existing knowledge, and to identify potential lacunae in current studies to direct future research. A comprehensive search was systematically performed in PubMed and EMBASE (via OvidSP) using search terms related to tissue engineering, cartilage and animals. Primary studies in which acellular biomaterials were implanted in osteochondral defects in the knee or ankle joint in healthy animals were included and study characteristics tabulated (283 studies out of 6,688 studies found). For studies comparing non-treated empty defects to defects containing implanted biomaterials and using semi-quantitative histology as outcome measure, the risk of bias (135 studies) was assessed and outcome data were collected for meta-analysis (151 studies). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, using cartilage regeneration as outcome measure on an absolute 0–100% scale. Implantation of acellular biomaterials significantly improved cartilage regeneration by 15.6% compared to non-treated empty defect controls. The addition of biologics to biomaterials significantly improved cartilage regeneration by 7.6% compared to control biomaterials. No significant differences were found between biomaterials from natural or synthetic origin or between scaffolds, hydrogels and blends. No noticeable differences were found in outcome between animal models. The risk of bias assessment indicated poor reporting for the majority of studies, impeding an assessment of the actual risk of bias. In conclusion, implantation of biomaterials in osteochondral defects improves cartilage regeneration compared to natural healing, which is further improved by the incorporation of biologics.

Concerns over fetal bovine serum (FBS) limit the clinical application of cultured tissue-engineered constructs. Therefore, we investigated if platelet-rich plasma (PRP) can fully replace FBS for meniscus tissue engineering purposes. Human PRP and platelet-poor plasma (PPP) were isolated from three healthy adult donors. Human meniscal fibrochondrocytes (MFCs) were isolated from resected tissue after a partial meniscectomy on a young patient. Passage-4 MFCs were cultured in monolayer for 24 h, and 3 and 7 days. Six different culture media were used containing different amounts of either PRP or PPP and compared to a medium containing 10% FBS. dsDNA was quantified, and gene expression levels of collagen types I and II and aggrecan were measured at different time points with quantitative polymerase chain reaction in the cultured MFCs. After 7 days, the dsDNA quantity was significantly higher in MFCs cultured in 10% and 20% PRP compared to the other PRP and PPP conditions, but equal to 10% FBS. Collagen type I expression was lower in MFCs cultured with medium containing 5% PRP, 10% and 20% PPP compared to FBS. When medium with 10% PRP or 20% PRP was used, expressions were not significantly different from medium containing 10% FBS. Collagen type II expression was absent in all medium conditions. Aggrecan expression did not show differences between the different media used. However, after 7 days a higher aggrecan expression was measured in most culture conditions, except for 5% PRP, which was similar compared to FBS. Statistical significance was found between donors at various time points in DNA quantification and gene expression, but the same donors were not statistically different in all conditions. At 7 days cell cultured with 10% PRP and 20% PRP showed a higher density, with large areas of clusters, compared to other conditions. In an MFC culture medium, FBS can be replaced by 10% PRP or 20% PRP without altering proliferation and gene expression of human MFCs.

Bone marrow stimulation may be applied to regenerate focal cartilage defects, but generally results in transient clinical improvement and formation of fibrocartilage rather than hyaline cartilage. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine strive to develop new solutions to regenerate hyaline cartilage tissue. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview of current literature and assesses the efficacy of articular cartilage regeneration by implantation of cell-laden versus cell-free biomaterials in the knee and ankle joint in animals after bone marrow stimulation. PubMed and EMBASE (via OvidSP) were systematically searched using tissue engineering, cartilage and animals search strategies. Included were primary studies in which cellular and acellular biomaterials were implanted after applying bone marrow stimulation in the knee or ankle joint in healthy animals. Study characteristics were tabulated and outcome data were collected for meta-analysis for studies applying semi-quantitative histology as outcome measure (117 studies). Cartilage regeneration was expressed on an absolute 0–100% scale and random effects meta-analyses were performed. Implantation of cellular biomaterials significantly improved cartilage regeneration by 18.6% compared to acellular biomaterials. No significant differences were found between biomaterials loaded with stem cells and those loaded with somatic cells. Culture conditions of cells did not affect cartilage regeneration. Cartilage formation was reduced with adipose-derived stem cells compared to other cell types, but still improved compared to acellular scaffolds. Assessment of the risk of bias was impaired due to incomplete reporting for most studies. Implantation of cellular biomaterials improves cartilage regeneration compared to acellular biomaterials.