Short Communication

An observational study evaluating the efficacy of microfragmented adipose tissue in the treatment of osteoarthritis

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: francis.fan3@nhs.net

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3100-3493

Kettering General Hospital, Trauma & Orthopaedics, Rothwell Road, England, NN16 8UZ

Search for more papers by this author

Robert A Grant

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9212-227X

Kettering General Hospital, Trauma & Orthopaedics, Rothwell Road, England, NN16 8UZ

Search for more papers by this author

Jonathan P Whitehead

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3978-3148

University of Lincoln, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, England, LN6 7TS

Search for more papers by this author

Alun Yewlett

MSK Doctors, MSK House, London Road, Willoughby, Sleaford, England, NG34 8NY, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Paul Y F Lee

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2779-6307

University of Lincoln, School of Sport & Exercise Science, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, England, LN6 7TS

MSK Doctors, MSK House, London Road, Willoughby, Sleaford, England, NG34 8NY, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:21 Dec 2022https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2022-0110

View article

Abstract

Aim: Osteoarthritis (OA) prevalence is increased in ageing and obese populations. This prospective single-arm cohort study aimed to investigate the efficacy of autologous microfragmented adipose tissue treatment of severe knee or shoulder OA. Materials & methods: Participants received an intra-articular microfragmented adipose tissue injection to the affected joint(s). Multiple patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) were recorded from 0 to 52 weeks for 63 consecutive joints. Results: Compared with baseline, there were significant improvements in all PROMS from 2 to 12 weeks and maintained at 52 weeks. Regression analysis revealed an inverse correlation with BMI and change in PROMS for knee joints. Conclusion: Our observed findings suggest this approach represents a safe, effective treatment for moderate-to-severe knee and shoulder OA, although efficacy may be reduced with increasing obesity.

Plain language summary

Swelling and pain in the joints is common and found more often in older and overweight people. Osteoarthritis causes swelling and pain in joints because of a loss of tough, flexible tissue called cartilage. This study looks to see if injection of fat tissue into knee or shoulder joints can improve symptoms. The fat tissue used was called microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT). This uses a technique to break down the fat tissue before injection. These cells were from the patient’s own body.

All patients had an injection of MFAT into their painful joints. In total, 59 patients took part. Reports were directly collected from the patient of how well they were doing. This was done before and after the injection at weeks 2, 6, 12, 24 and 52. There were three different types of report collected for knee joints and three for shoulder joints. Scores were then compared from these reports to see if there was a difference.

An improvement was found in all three of the combined reports for both knees and shoulders. This stayed until 52 weeks. BMI is a measure of body weight in relation to height. Patients with a higher BMI were found to have had a smaller improvement in their scores.

This study shows MFAT injections are safe and effective in treating painful joints.

Tweetable abstract

A microfragmented adipose tissue injection to the shoulder or knee of osteoarthritis patients offers a safe and effective treatment in moderate-to-severe disease, with reduced efficacy at increased BMIs.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

References

1. Lannone F, Lapadula G. The pathophysiology of osteoarthritis. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 15(5), 364–372 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Swain S, Sarmanova A, Mallen C et al. Trends in incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis in the United Kingdom: findings from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Osteoarthr. Cartil. 28(6), 792–801 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Hunter DJ, Bierma-Zeinstra S. Osteoarthritis. Lancet 393(10182), 1745–59 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Singh JA, Lewallen D. Predictors of pain and use of pain medications following primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA): 5,707 THAs at 2-years and 3,289 THAs at 5-years. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 11(1), 90 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Wylde V, Hewlett S, Learmonth ID, Dieppe P. Persistent pain after joint replacement: prevalence, sensory qualities, and postoperative determinants. Pain 152(3), 566–572 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Evans JT, Walker RW, Evans JP, Blom AW, Sayers A, Whitehouse MR. How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 393(10172), 655–663 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Belk JW, Kraeutler MJ, Houck DA, Goodrich JA, Dragoo JL, McCarty EC. Platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am. J. Sports Med. 49(1), 249–260 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Lopa S, Colombini A, Moretti M, de Girolamo L. Injective mesenchymal stem cell-based treatments for knee osteoarthritis: from mechanisms of action to current clinical evidences. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 27(6), 2003–20 (2019). • This recent review supports mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) injection efficacy from culture expanded and progenitor cell concentrates in knee osteoarthritis.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Andersen C, Uvebrant K, Mori Y et al. Human integrin α10β1-selected mesenchymal stem cells home to cartilage defects in the rabbit knee and assume a chondrocyte-like phenotype. Stem Cell. Res. Ther. 13(1), 206 (2022). • Primary research explains a possible mechanism of action for MSCs via homing to cartilage defects and differentiation to chondrocytes in rabbit models.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Tremolada C, Colombo V, Ventura C. Adipose tissue and mesenchymal stem cells: state of the Art and Lipogems^® Technology Development. Stem Cell Rep. 2(3), 304–312 (2016).
Google Scholar
11. Harrell CR, Markovic BS, Fellabaum C, Arsenijevic A, Volarevic V. Mesenchymal stem cell-based therapy of osteoarthritis: current knowledge and future perspectives. Biomed. Pharmacother. 109, 2318–2326 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Caplan AI. What's in a name? Tissue Eng. Part A 16(8), 2415–7 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Caplan AI. Adult mesenchymal stem cells: when, where, and how. Stem Cells Int. 2015, 628767 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Caplan AI. MSCs: the sentinel and safe-guards of injury. J. Cell. Physiol. 231(7), 1413–1416 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Desando G, Bartolotti I, Martini L et al. Regenerative features of adipose tissue for osteoarthritis treatment in a rabbit model: enzymatic digestion versus mechanical disruption. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20(11), 2636 (2019). • Preclinical study using rabbit models shows mechanistic differences in adipose stem cells (ASCs) from two different techniques in microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT) versus stromal vascular fraction. There was increased wound healing macrophage expression in MFAT as well as ASC migration towards the cartilage (as opposed to the synovium with stromal vascular fraction).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Greenwood V, Clausen P, Matuska AM. Micro-fragmented adipose tissue cellular composition varies by processing device and analytical method. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 16107 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Tang Y, Pan Z, Zou Y et al. A comparative assessment of adipose-derived stem cells from subcutaneous and visceral fat as a potential cell source for knee osteoarthritis treatment. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 21(9), 2153–62 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Malanga GA, Chirichella PS, Hogaboom NS, Capella T. Clinical evaluation of micro-fragmented adipose tissue as a treatment option for patients with meniscus tears with osteoarthritis: a prospective pilot study. Int. Orthop. 45(2), 473–80 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Vezzani B, Shaw I, Lesme H et al. Higher pericyte content and secretory activity of microfragmented human adipose tissue compared to enzymatically derived stromal vascular fraction. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 7(12), 876–886 (2018). • In vitro research supporting MFAT efficacy in comparison to cell culture techniques as explained by key components of the perivascular niche present in MFAT.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Jo CH, Lee YG, Shin WH et al. Intra-articular injection of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a proof-of-concept clinical trial. Stem Cells 32(5), 1254–1266 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Heidari N, Borg T, Olgiati S et al. Microfragmented adipose tissue injection (MFAT) may be a solution to the rationing of total knee replacement: a prospective, gender-bias mitigated, reproducible analysis at two years. Stem Cells Int. 2021, 1–14 (2021).
Google Scholar
22. Gobbi A, Dallo I, Rogers C et al. Two-year clinical outcomes of autologous microfragmented adipose tissue in elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis: a multi-centric, international study. Int. Orthop. 45(5), 1179–1188 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Matas J, Orrego M, Amenabar D et al. Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) for knee osteoarthritis: repeated MSC dosing is superior to a single MSC dose and to hyaluronic acid in a controlled randomized Phase I/II trial. Stem Cells Transl Med. 8(3), 215–224 (2019). • Randomized controlled trial highlights repeated MSC intra-articular injection for patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis may be more efficacious than single MSC injection as well as hyaluronic acid injection.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Bianchi F, Maioli M, Leonardi E et al. A new nonenzymatic method and device to obtain a fat tissue derivative highly enriched in pericyte-like elements by mild mechanical forces from human lipoaspirates. Cell Transplant. 222(11), 2063–2077 (2013).
Google Scholar
25. Lu L, Dai C, Zhang Z et al. Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with intra-articular injection of autologous adipose-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, Phase IIb clinical trial. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 10(1), 143 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Freitag J, Bates D, Wickham J et al. Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Regen. Med. 14(3), 213–230 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
27. Natali S, Screpis D, Farinelli L et al. The use of intra-articular injection of autologous micro-fragmented adipose tissue as pain treatment for ankle osteoarthritis: a prospective not randomized clinical study. Int. Orthop. 45(9), 2239–2244 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Yubo M, Yanyan L, Li L, Tao S, Bo L, Lin C. Clinical efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cell transplantation for osteoarthritis treatment: a meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 12(4), e0175449 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Wang T, He C. Pro-inflammatory cytokines: the link between obesity and osteoarthritis. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 44, 38–50 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Chapple CM, Nicholson H, Baxter GD, Abbott JH. Patient characteristics that predict progression of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of prognostic studies. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken) 63(8), 1115–1125 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Raud B, Gay C, Guiguet-Auclair C et al. Level of obesity is directly associated with the clinical and functional consequences of knee osteoarthritis. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 3601 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Cavallo C, Merli G, Zini N et al. Small extracellular vesicles from inflamed adipose derived stromal cells enhance the NF-κB-dependent inflammatory/catabolic environment of osteoarthritis. Stem Cells Int. 2022, 9376338 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Juntunen M, Heinonen S, Huhtala H et al. Evaluation of the effect of donor weight on adipose stromal/stem cell characteristics by using weight-discordant monozygotic twin pairs. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 12(1), 516 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Shin S, El-Sabbagh AS, Lukas BE, Tanneberger SJ, Jiang Y. Adipose stem cells in obesity: challenges and opportunities. Biosci. Rep. 40(6), BSR20194076 (2020). • A review of the literature explaining changes in ASC in obesity. Chronic inflammation associated with obesity impairs ASC function.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Vinet-Jones H, Darr KF. Clinical use of autologous micro-fragmented fat progressively restores pain and function in shoulder osteoarthritis. Regen. Med. 15(10), 2153–2161 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
36. Ibrahim H, Yewlett AD, Marudanayagam A, Lee PYF. Lipogems in osteoarthritis: fact or fiction? J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 9 (2019).
Google Scholar
37. Pas HI, Winters M, Haisma HJ, Koenis M, Tol J, Moen M. Stem cell injections in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of the literature. Br. J. Sports Med. 51, 1125–1133 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Thompson M, Mei SHJ, Wolfe D et al. Cell therapy with intravascular administration of mesenchymal stromal cells continues to appear safe: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 19, 100249 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. McIntyre JA, Jones IA, Han B, Vangsness CT. Intra-articular mesenchymal stem cell therapy for the human joint: a systematic review. Am. J. Sports Med. 46(14), 3550–3563 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Tavel ME. The placebo effect: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am. J. Med. 127(6), 484–488 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
41. Holmes RD, Tiwari AK, Kennedy JL. Mechanisms of the placebo effect in pain and psychiatric disorders. Pharmacogenomics J. 16(6), 491–500 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42. Zion SR, Crum AJ. Mindsets Matter: a new framework for harnessing the placebo effect in modern medicine. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 138, 137–160 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Hashmi JA. Placebo effect: theory, mechanisms and teleological roots. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 139, 233–253 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44. Kluzek S, Dean B, Wartolowska KA. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as proof of treatment efficacy. BMJ Evid. Based Med. 27(3), 153–155 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 18, No. 2

Metrics

Downloaded 112 times

History

Received 29 June 2022

Accepted 22 November 2022

Published online 21 December 2022

Published in print February 2023

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

F Fan was responsible for production and revision of the manuscript. RA Grant contributed significantly to production and revision of the manuscript. JP Whitehead contributed to analysis and interpretation of the data. A Yewlett and PYF Lee designed and acquired the data as well as revising and approving the manuscript.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

The authors state that they have obtained appropriate institutional review board approval from the MSK research ethics committee (MSK002101) for all human experimental investigations. In addition, for investigations involving human subjects, verbal and written informed consent has been obtained from the participants involved.

Data sharing statement

The authors certify that this manuscript reports original clinical trial data. Deidentified, individual data that underlie the results reported in this article (text, tables, figures and appendices) are available from the corresponding author from the date of publication until May 2027. The PROMS scores, study timeline and study questionnaire are available for the purpose of meta-analyses.

PDF download