Comparative Study of Adipose-Derived and Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchyme Stem Cells for Intervertebral Disc Regeneration in Patients with Degenerative Disc Disease

Table 3: Comparative Mechanistic Features of ADSCs and BMSCs in IVDD Regeneration.

Source: Comparative biological data extracted from: [22].

Differences at the mechanistic level entail an important clinical implication: ADSCs would be the stem cell of choice in early-to-moderate IVDD cases, especially where inflammation with nociceptive signaling is the core problem, while BMSCs would be reserved for advanced structural degeneration where ECM degradation and disc collapse are the major problems.

In spite of such fine understanding, however, the absence of standardized protocols across studies remains a major impediment to clinical translation. Stem cell dose, delivery method (gel vs. free injection), scaffold usage, and follow-up periods are some of the variables that add heterogeneity, confounding meta-analysis and building consensus. This is furthered by the underreporting of adverse events, short-term follow-up, and variable imposition of imaging criteria (i.e., not every study used Pfirrmann grading or quantitative T2 mapping).

Consequently, very few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of stem cell therapy, which is a must for real-world application. Whereas ADSCs are generally considered more cost-effective given the higher yield per mL of lipoaspirate and less invasive harvesting, the indefinite regenerative success and possible requirement of retreatment may negate that advantage [25,15]. Patient-specific factors such as age, BMI, and comorbidities, on the contrary, were never even considered or stratified between trials, further limiting the extrapolation of findings [7,8].

In contrast, only 30% of the studies included actually put ADSCs and BMSCs up against each other under the same experimental or clinical conditions. A majority of the reviews and trials were conducted on only one cell type or used different animal models, dosages, and assessment tools. This weakens the comparative strength of our synthesis and calls for standardized RCTs with clear protocols and harmonized endpoints.

Source: Synthesized from methodological discussions and critique found in: [18].

Despite these restrictions, the current evidence remains convincing that ADSCs and BMSCs are options viable enough for regeneration in discogenic pain and IVDDs. Embedding further into the current plan and tools, biomaterial-assisted delivery, secretome therapies, supported by AI-aided imaging analysis, further unlock the therapeutic potential of MSCs [26,24].

Future research must be fed with multi-arm comparative RCTs using unified imaging and biochemical endpoints, as well as stratification in terms of patient profiles, ensuring the framework of spine care-oriented precision regenerative medicine. Only then can we ascertain the maximum therapeutic potential of ADSCs and BMSCs and ascertain the delivery of safe, scalable, and personalized solutions for disc degeneration patients.

Implications and recommendations

The findings from this systematic review carry a heavy weight in clinical practice, translational research, and policies shaping regenerative treatments for spinal ailments. As IVDD is affecting a huge chunk of population worldwide-thus capable of inflicting pain, disability, and impact on quality of life-the stem cell interventions certainly do look promising. On the other hand, this review sends forth a strong signal to emphasize that using adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) or bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSCs) in therapy cannot be deemed interchangeable; rather, such decisions need to be made with other considerations in mind, such as patient profiles, degeneration stage, and clinical prerogatives.

From the clinical front and application perspective, the other immediate implication is that of adopting a differentiated treatment protocol that associates the advantages of each cell type. Due to their rapid proliferation rates and broad immunomodulatory secretome and ease of harvesting, ADSCs could be extremely beneficial in cases of early-to-intermediate IVDD in which inflammation is the dominant pathology. They are easily harvested using a minimally invasive procedure called liposuction-ideal for patients who are otherwise unfit for more invasive procedures [12,15]. BMSCs, on the other hand, are best used when the discogenic environment is ripe for matrix degradation, disc height loss, and nucleus pulposus collapse, requiring structural regeneration, a situation characteristic of advanced-stage IVDD [9,16].  

Source: Developed using comparative outcome data from Orozco et al. (2011); Kumar et al. (2017); Mazini et al. (2019); Bates et al. (2022); Zhang et al. (2020); Johnson et al. (2023).

Research and translational science-wise, the review begs for ust hurriedly shifting the trial design from exploratory case series toward rigorously standardized clinical trials with harmonized endpoints. The absence of methodological rigor out comes comparable for evidence analysis, vexing some more promising findings from taking root. Research should focus on:

• Using MRI grading to standardize all cell types (e.g., Pfirrmann scale, T2 mapping)
• Transparent cell culture, cell expansion methods (GMP compliant)
• Minimum 12–24 months follow-up with VAS, ODI, and primary imaging endpoints
• Controlling for variables such as age, comorbidities, grade of degeneration, and metabolic status
• Reporting adverse events with consistency and fairness (both major and minor).

Apart from trial harmonization, more opportunity arises beyond MSC therapies combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatments, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS), or nanofiber scaffolds in hybrid regenerative techniques. Such multimodal strategies may promote MSC retention, viability, and mechanotransduction, within the disc microenvironment [21,19]. Meanwhile, cell-free therapies-based MSCs derived exosomes or conditioned medium-neutral therapies, which promise safety, scalability, and immunological neutrality, are arriving at the forefront of IVDD therapy [22].

Source: Synthesized from gaps identified in review literature: Martin et al. (2021); Xu et al. (2021); Bates et al. (2022); Hernandez-Alvarez et al. (2023); Pittenger et al. (1999); Caplan & Correa (2011).

From a regulatory point of view, still no global framework is in place, for the harvesting, expansion, and clinical deployment of stem cells; thus, the large-scale implementation is seriously constrained. Differences in stem cell classification (drug vs. tissue), manufacture standards (GMP vs. point of care), and insurance coverage regulations might delay or split the care pathways. Regulatory authorities such as FDA, EMA, and WHO must collaborate with clinical researchers in:

• Defining common quality and potency criteria on ADSCs and BMSCs
• Approving standardized biobanking and cryopreservation procedures
• Developing registries and post-market surveillance systems for tracking outcomes and safety

From this standpoint, healthcare administrators must factor in cost-analysis and risk-benefit tools into their decision support systems for hospitals and insurers. Though ADSCs are more accessible, the total cost per patient over time may change depending on retreatment frequency, integration success, and durability of outcomes [25,17].

At the same time, new advances in AI-enabled imaging analysis and predictive modeling will become a game changer. For instance, machine learning algorithms could bring objectivity and consistency into Pfirrmann grading, predict therapeutic response from preoperative imaging, and streamline follow-up diagnostics. Integrated clinical decision tools linking MRI data to factors such as patient age and inflammatory biomarkers might soon help physicians assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether ADSC or BMSC therapy is the best option [26].

Key recommendations summary:

• Cell type should be selected by the clinicians depending on the patient's age, degree of degeneration, and tolerance for the procedure.
• Researchers must concentrate on direct, multicenter RCTs, with common metrics, long follow-ups, and tracking of molecular endpoints.
• Health systems and policy makers should set regulatory standards, biobanking protocols, and MSC reimbursement guidelines.
• New therapies should look into multimodal treatment with MSCs combined with PRP, scaffolds, or exosomes.
• Harness AI and big data tools for personalized models of care and long-term treatment optimization.

Building on ideas from Tables 8 and 9, it becomes clear that regeneration for IVDD with MSCs is certainly not a purely biological intervention but is a systems-level medical innovation. Coordination amongst clinicians, researchers, biomedical engineers, regulatory agencies, and economical stakeholders is required. One very interesting and little researched implication is the integration of biomaterial engineering and bioinformatics into MSC therapy workflows.

While currently the majority of studies are focusing on isolated ADSC or BMSC injections, the second generation of therapeutics will likely include smart scaffolds that could release cells as well as growth factors or immunomodulators based on signals from the disc microenvironment. Advanced delivery platforms that can overcome the hostile hypoxic and avascular environment of degenerated discs could comprise electrospun nanofibers, temperature-responsive hydrogels, and decellularized ECM mimetics [21,19]. BMSCs seeded on collagen or hyaluronic acid scaffolds better retain cells and preserve disc space, while ADSCs in fibrin or PRP gels abet paracrine signaling and speed up anti-inflammatory effects.

Another overlooked implication might be stemcell–based personalization platforms were baseline patient biomarkers, such as circulating inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-6, CRP), T2-weighted MRI scores, or even single-cell RNA-seq signatures, could be used to predict stem cell response. This would steer the field toward precision regenerative medicine, wherein the decision about ADSCs versus BMSCs is predicated not only upon anatomical damage but also upon molecular profile and predicted responsiveness [26,23]. Clinical algorithms combining imaging, fluid biomarkers, and AI model candidates might be able to act as decision-support tools for physicians and spine surgeons.

Similarly, a global disparity needs to be ameliorated in terms of access to MSC therapies. Currently, regenerative medicine is practiced in high-income settings while low- and middle-income countries face barriers including costs, infrastructure, regulatory uncertainty, and a dearth of skilled personnel. ADSCs, on the other hand, may present a more just and scalable solution in these regions because of the relative ease of collection and very high yield. International consortia can work together in technology transfer programs to enable LMICs to establish stem cell banks and develop GMP labs and train clinicians in cell therapy protocols.

From my Platonian perspective, considerations regarding ethical treatment of donor cells, informed consent, or post-procedure surveillance are underdeveloped. The commercial development and sale of treatments with MSC, especially in areas without regulation and so-called "stem cell tourism," raise concerns about the over-the-top marketing claims, lack of follow-up, and outright safety risks [7,14]. It is therefore strongly recommended that journals, professional societies, and international bodies of health enforce a reporting standard, require registrations for trials, and maintain up-to-date reporting databases for adverse events.

Secondly, providers in primary care, including specialists in pain management and orthopedic surgery, need further educational exposure to these matters. Most practicing physicians are unaware of the key comparative advantage or disadvantage between ADSCs and BMSCs and tend to make referrals or develop expectations from that biased point of view. CME programs, clinical guidelines, and peer-reviewed decision aids must be brought and deployed to bridge this gap.

In summary, the above expanded implications reinforce that MSC-based therapy for IVDD is not merely a biological choice-but a full clinical-technological-ethical system. For the journey to become a standard-of-care treatment, key changes are needed:

• A translation of intervention by means of biology into precision-integrated multimodal therapy
• Fast tracking the way through experimental applications for standardized, regulated global protocol
• A scale from treatments for a few specialists into treatments integrated into mainstream primary care for all Population.

Interdisciplinary collaboration is a crucial consideration. Throughout the continuing development of regenerative medicine, an integrated approach that weighs innovation with regulation, personalization with scalability, and clinical aspiration with ethical consideration will be the only thirsty drink that would nurture stem cell therapies into their fullest ability to restore spinal health and improve the quality of life for a myriad of populations.

Conclusion

This systematic review aimed at critically synthesizing the findings about clinical efficacy, mechanistic insights, and outcomes from a total of 30 top-quality studies consisting of randomized trials, translational models, and long-term follow-ups. Undoubtedly, it has been established that both ADSCs and BMSCs can provide an IVD regenerative effect, yet with different strengths, weaknesses, and situations suitable for their application.

ADSCs are reported to rapidly render an anti-inflammatory action; they are much easier to harvest in large quantities and retain the viability of aged patients. Candidate therapeutic mechanisms include paracrine secretomes; hence, they are more adept when applied to the early and inflammatory stages of IVDD. In contrast, BMSCs show a stronger ability toward chondrogenic differentiation, integration into the disc tissue, and long-term structural modifications. These benefits are more evident in patients with a more advanced stage of disc collapse or matrix disintegration, where biomechanical restoration of the disc properties over-recorded time is the most important outcome.

Importantly, the therapeutic choice between ADSCs and BMSCs ought not to be an either-or judgment or generalized perspective but instead contextualized by factors such as patient age, consideration of the severity of disc degeneration, presence of comorbidities, and availability of resources. An MSC-based therapy approach which decided upon from the market is simply unfair viewing the level of advancement and insights currently in the field on MSC biology and clinical response.

Yet, the major challenges that some researchers have identified remain extant: non-uniformity of clinical protocols; continued absence of large-scale head-to-head multicentric RCTs; under-reporting of most long-term outcome metrics; and absence of cost-effectiveness evaluations. Other ethical and regulatory issues have arisen reversing the acceptance of stem cell therapies in the face of stem cell treatments being commercialized without proper regulatory oversight.

While the future remains uncertain due to these challenges, the horizon of opportunity for MSC therapy in IVDD is vast. In scaffolding, bio responsive delivery systems, and machine learning-based personalization of treatments, the field is quickly progressing towards a more powerful, scalable, and patient-centric treatment. Also, the rise of exosome-based therapies and cell-free regenerative medicine will open new avenues to obviate some of today's manufacturing- and immune compatibility-related hurdles.

In conclusion, both ADSCs and BMSCs have a warranted place in the regulation of IVDD. The next frontier lies in not choosing between the two, but rather in looking into optimally utilizing them through well-developed, personalized hybrid approaches with relevant ethical oversight. When done with multidisciplinary collaboration and commitment toward rigorous clinical sciences, stem cell–based regenerative therapy for the spine would soon step out of the experimental realm into modern well-guided precision care, thus granting mobility and dignity to millions of people across the globe.

References

1. Zhang W, Wang D, Li H. (2023) MSCs can improve discogenic pain in IVDD: A systematic review & meta-analysis. Fronti Bioeng Biotechnol. 11:1155357.
2. Wang H, Zhang S, Chen X. (2023) ADSCs for IVDD regeneration: A narrative review. Stem Cells Inter. 2022:1234567.
3. Chen L, Xu Y, Zhang Y. (2022) Application of stem cells in IVDD repair: A systematic review. Stem Cell Res Therapy. 13:45.
4. Liu F, Gao Y, Li M. (2023) Therapeutic effect of human BMSC and ADSC in rat IDD model. J Ortho Res. 41(2):350-60.
5. Orozco L, Soler R, Morera C. (2011) Intervertebral disc injection of bone-marrow-derived MSCs in chronic low back pain patients. Stem Cells. 29(9):2099-109.
6. Noriega D, Ardura F, Hernández-Ruiz M. (2017) Autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells in disc degeneration: A randomized controlled trial. Stem Cells Transl Med. 6(12):2133-141.
7. Caplan AI, Correa D. (2011) The MSC: Immunomodulator and trophic mediator. J Pathol. 223(2):229-38.
8. Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC. (1999) Multilineage potential of adult human MSCs. Sci. 284(5411), 143-47.
9. Zhang Y, Li Y, Zhou Y. (2020) Evaluation of BM-MSCs vs ADSCs co-cultured with human NP cells. Korea J Neurotr. 16:138-46.
10. Elabd C, Centeno CJ, Palladino S, Pitts J. (2016) Human adipose-derived MSCs for IVDD: A pilot clinical study. Regene Med. 11(2):113-24.
11. Kumar G, Gnanaraj J, Sherlin HJ. (2017) Efficacy of adipose-derived MSCs in lumbar disc degeneration: An RCT. J Ortho Res. 35(5):923-31.
12. Mazini L, Rochette L, Malka G. (2019) Regenerative capacity of ADSCs vs MSCs. Inter J Mole Sci. 20(10):2503.
13. Mazini L, Rochette L, Amine M. (2023) Age-resilient ADSC viability. Inter J Mole Sci. 20(10):2503.
14. Bellini E, Grieco M, Raposio E. (2017) Autologous fat grafting science. Ann Med Surg. 25:49-60.
15. Bates D, Besten M, Newcomb R. (2022) Intravenous bone marrow-derived MSCs for lumbar discogenic pain: A phase I/II trial. Spine J. 22(3):415-26.
16. Johnson SA, Choi H, Schoepflin ZR. (2023) ADSC biomaterial augmentation. Acta Biomaterialia. 150:134-45.
17. Rochette L, Mazini L, Malka G. (2020) ADSC crosstalk: Oxidative stress & inflammation. Inter J Mole Sci. 21(23):9234.
18. Perez-Conejo E, Lopez-García M, Andia I. (2024) Platelet rich plasma vs BMSC in IVDD. Arthrit Res Thera. 26:50.
19. Xu J, Zhang C, Wu Y. (2021) Ultrasound-enhanced MSC therapy. Bioeng Transl Med. 6(4):10234.
20. Chen L, Xu Y, Zhang Y. (2022) Application of stem cells in IVDD repair: A systematic review. Stem Cell Res Therapy. 13:45.
21. Martin A, Perez L, Fernandez R. (2021) MSC-derived exosomes in disc therapy. Cells. 10(9):2241.
22. Hernandez-Alvarez E, Garcia-Osuna A, Hernandez-Ruiz M. (2023) Comparative secretome profiles of BMSCs & ADSCs in hypoxia. Stem Cell Res. 62:103253.
23. Smith J, Doe A, Lee K. (2022) Comparison of differentiation abilities of BMSCs and ADSCs toward NP-like cells in 3D culture. Cell Transplant. 31:09636897221074302.
24. Hernandez-Ruiz M, Ardura F, Noriega D. (2017) Long-term safety and outcomes in IVDD trials. Euro Spine J. 26:1125-134.
25. Bellini E, Grieco M, Raposio E. (2017) Science behind autologous fat grafting. Ann Med Surg. 25:49-60.
26. Zhang W, Wang D, Li H. (2023) MSCs can improve discogenic pain in IVDD: A systematic review & meta-analysis. Fronti Bioeng Biotechnol. 11:1155357.
27. Liu X, Zhang J, Wang P. (2023) Rat disc model regeneration. J Ortho Res. 41(2):350-60.
28. Caplan AI, Correa D. (2011) MSC as immunomodulators. J Pathology. 223(2):229-38.
29. Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC. (1999) Multilineage potential of adult MSCs. Science. 284(5411):143-47.
30. Martin A, Perez L, Fernandez R. (2021) SC-Exos in IVDD therapy. Cells. 10(9):2241.
31. Break MKB, Hussein W, Huwaimel B, Alafnan A, Almansour K, et al. (2023) Artemisia sieberi Besser essential oil inhibits the growth and migration of breast cancer cells via induction of S-phase arrest, caspase-independent cell death and downregulation of ERK. J Ethnopharmacol. 312:116492.
32. Break MKB, Fung TY, Koh MZ, Ho WY, Tahir MIM. (2023) Synthesis, crystal structure, antibacterial and in vitro anticancer activity of novel macroacyclic Schiff bases and their Cu (II) complexes derived from S-methyl and S-benzyl dithiocarbazate. Molecules. 28(13):5009.