↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease-associated radicular pain with culture-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells: a pilot study on safety and efficacy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
twitter
30 X users
patent
1 patent
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease-associated radicular pain with culture-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells: a pilot study on safety and efficacy
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-017-1300-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Centeno, Jason Markle, Ehren Dodson, Ian Stemper, Christopher J. Williams, Matthew Hyzy, Thomas Ichim, Michael Freeman

Abstract

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a common cause of lower back pain with radicular symptoms and has a significant socioeconomic impact given the associated disability. Limited effective conservative therapeutic options result in many turning to surgical alternatives for management, which vary in the rate of success and also carry an increased risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedures. Several animal based studies and a few human pilot studies have demonstrated safety and suggest efficacy in the treatment of DDD with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). The use of bone marrow-derived MSCs for the treatment of DDD is promising and in the present study we report on the safety and efficacy findings from a registry based proof of concept study using a percutaneous intradiscal injection of cultured MSCs for the management of DDD with associated radicular symptoms. Thirty-three patients with lower back pain and disc degeneration with a posterior disc bulge diagnosed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) met the inclusion criteria and were treated with culture-expanded, autologous, bone marrow-derived MSCs. Prospective registry data was obtained at multiple time intervals up to 6 years post-treatment. Collected outcomes included numeric pain score (NPS), a modified single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating, functional rating index (FRI), measurement of the intervertebral disc posterior dimension, and adverse events. Three patients reported pain related to procedure that resolved. There were no serious adverse events (i.e. death, infection, or tumor) associated with the procedure. NPS change scores relative to baseline were significant at 3, 36, 48, 60, and 72 months post-treatment. The average modified SANE ratings showed a mean improvement of 60% at 3 years post-treatment. FRI post-treatment change score averages exceeded the minimal clinically important difference at all time points except 12 months. Twenty of the patients treated underwent post-treatment MRI and 85% had a reduction in disc bulge size, with an average reduction size of 23% post-treatment. Patients treated with autologous cultured MSCs for lower back pain with radicular symptoms in the setting of DDD reported minor adverse events and significant improvements in pain, function, and overall subjective improvement through 6 years of follow-up. NCT03011398. A Clinical Registry of Orthobiologics Procedures. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03011398?term=orthobiologics&rank=1.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 17%
Student > Master 14 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 10 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 5%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 62 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 29%
Engineering 11 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 67 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2022.
All research outputs
#403,218
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#86
of 4,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,216
of 319,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.