Adult human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hAMSCs) are multipotent cells, which are abundant, easily collected, and bypass the ethical concerns that plague embryonic stem cells. Their utility and accessibility have led to the rapid development of clinical investigations to explore their autologous and allogeneic cellular-based regenerative potential, tissue preservation capabilities, anti-inflammatory properties, and anticancer properties, among others. hAMSCs are typically cultured under ambient conditions with 21% oxygen. However, physiologically, hAMSCs exist in an environment of much lower oxygen tension. Furthermore, hAMSCs cultured in standard conditions have shown limited proliferative and migratory capabilities, as well as limited viability. This study investigated the effects hypoxic culture conditions have on primary intraoperatively derived hAMSCs. hAMSCs cultured under hypoxia (hAMSCs-H) remained multipotent, capable of differentiation into osteogenic, chondrogenic, and adipogenic lineages. In addition, hAMSCs-H grew faster and exhibited less cell death. Furthermore, hAMSCs-H had greater motility than normoxia-cultured hAMSCs and exhibited greater homing ability to glioblastoma (GBM) derived from brain tumor-initiating cells from our patients in vitro and in vivo. Importantly, hAMSCs-H did not transform into tumor-associated fibroblasts in vitro and were not tumorigenic in vivo. Rather, hAMSCs-H promoted the differentiation of brain cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. These findings suggest an alternative culturing technique that can enhance the function of hAMSCs, which may be necessary for their use in the treatment of various pathologies including stroke, myocardial infarction, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and GBM.

The reported incidence of meniscal tears is approximately 61 per 100,000. In instances where preservation of the native meniscus is no longer a feasible option, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and implants or scaffolds may be considered. The goal of this review was to compare the success and failure rates of two techniques, MAT and meniscal scaffolds, and make an inference which treatment is more preferable at the present time and future. Studies that met inclusion criteria were assessed for technique used, type of transplant used, number of procedures included in the study, mean age of patients, mean follow-up time, number of failures, failure rate, and reported reoperation rate. Fifteen studies for the MAT group and 7 studies for the meniscal scaffold group were identified. In this selection of studies, the average failure rate in the MAT group was 18.7% and average reoperation rate was 31.3%. The average failure rate in the meniscal scaffold group was 5.6%, and average reoperation rate was 6.9%. It appears that although MAT is associated with high reoperation and failure rates, the limited number of studies on both MAT and scaffolds and mainly short-term results of scaffold studies make it difficult to make an objective comparison.

Object Historically, adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) has been treated with multilevel decompression and instrumented fusion to reduce neural compression and stabilize the spinal column. However, due to the profound morbidity associated with complex multilevel surgery, particularly in elderly patients and those with multiple medical comorbidities, minimally invasive surgical approaches have been proposed. The goal of this meta-analysis was to review the differences in patient selection for minimally invasive surgical versus open surgical procedures for adult DLS, and to compare the postoperative outcomes following minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery. Methods In this meta-analysis the authors analyzed the complication rates and the clinical outcomes for patients with adult DLS undergoing complex decompressive procedures with fusion versus minimally invasive surgical approaches. Minimally invasive surgical approaches included decompressive laminectomy, microscopic decompression, lateral and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and percutaneous pedicle screw placement for fusion. Mean patient age, complication rates, reoperation rates, Cobb angle, and measures of sagittal balance were investigated and compared between groups. Results Twelve studies were identified for comparison in the MIS group, with 8 studies describing the lateral interbody fusion or XLIF and 4 studies describing decompression without fusion. In the decompression MIS group, the mean preoperative Cobb angle was 16.7° and mean postoperative Cobb angle was 18°. In the XLIF group, mean pre- and postoperative Cobb angles were 22.3° and 9.2°, respectively. The difference in postoperative Cobb angle was statistically significant between groups on 1-way ANOVA (p = 0.014). Mean preoperative Cobb angle, mean patient age, and complication rate did not differ between the XLIF and decompression groups. Thirty-five studies were identified for inclusion in the open surgery group, with 18 studies describing patients with open fusion without osteotomy and 17 papers detailing outcomes after open fusion with osteotomy. Mean preoperative curve in the open fusion without osteotomy and with osteotomy groups was 41.3° and 32°, respectively. Mean reoperation rate was significantly higher in the osteotomy group (p = 0.008). On 1-way ANOVA comparing all groups, there was a statistically significant difference in mean age (p = 0.004) and mean preoperative curve (p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between groups (p = 0.28). Conclusions The results of this study suggest that surgeons are offering patients open surgery or MIS depending on their age and the severity of their deformity. Greater sagittal and coronal correction was noted in the XLIF versus decompression only MIS groups. Larger Cobb angles, greater sagittal imbalance, and higher reoperation rates were found in studies reporting the use of open fusion with osteotomy. Although complication rates did not significantly differ between groups, these data are difficult to interpret given the heterogeneity in reporting complications between studies.