Rationale: In the medical field, the use of 3-dimensional (3D) printing is increasing explosively and it is especially widespread in the clinical application of fabricating orthosis. Advantages of 3D-printed orthosis compared to conventional ones include its lower cost, easier modification, and faster fabrication. The 3D-printing technique makes it possible for physicians to easily create individual-tailored products. Recently, many kinds of orthosis through 3D printing have been studied and used. The knee orthosis, ankle-foot orthosis, wrist orthosis, hand orthosis, and foot orthotics are examples used in the rehabilitation fields of orthotics. We reported 3 cases of 3D-printed orthoses in patients with peripheral nerve injuries. Patients concerns: In spite of the rapid development of the clinical use of 3D printing, to our knowledge, its application to patients with peripheral nerve injuries has not yet been reported. Two patients suffered from upper limb problems and 1 patient had a foot drop associated with peripheral nerve injury. Diagnosis: Three patients diagnosed with median neuropathy, ulnar neuropathy, and right lower lumbar radiculopathy, respectively, by electromyography. Interventions: Herein we present 3 case reports of patients with peripheral nerve injuries whose orthotic needs were fulfilled with the application of 3D-printed wrist orthosis and ankle-foot orthosis. Outcomes: For hand function evaluation, we assessed the Jebsen–Taylor hand function test. Grasp and pinch powers were assessed by a hand dynamometer before and after orthosis application. For lower limb functional evaluation, we used a 6-minute walking test and modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile for ambulatory function. Lessons: The 3D-printed orthosis could help functional improvement in patients with peripheral nerve injuries.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Current clinical applications of mesenchymal stem cell therapy for osteoarthritis lack consistency because there are no established criteria for clinical processes. We aimed to systematically organize stem cell treatment methods by reviewing the literature. The treatment methods used in 27 clinical trials were examined and reviewed. The clinical processes were separated into seven categories: cell donor, cell source, cell preparation, delivery methods, lesion preparation, concomitant procedures, and evaluation. Stem cell donors were sub-classified as autologous and allogeneic, and stem cell sources included bone marrow, adipose tissue, peripheral blood, synovium, placenta, and umbilical cord. Mesenchymal stem cells can be prepared by the expansion or isolation process and attached directly to cartilage defects using matrices or injected into joints under arthroscopic observation. The lesion preparation category can be divided into three subcategories: chondroplasty, microfracture, and subchondral drilling. The concomitant procedure category describes adjuvant surgery, such as high tibial osteotomy. Classification codes were assigned for each subcategory to provide a useful and convenient method for organizing documents associated with stem cell treatment. This classification system will help researchers choose more unified treatment methods, which will facilitate the efficient comparison and verification of future clinical outcomes of stem cell therapy for osteoarthritis.