Feb 28, 2017
When it comes to cellular orthopedics, for me, it is a matter of honor and self-interest.
If you aren’t aware of the bogus stem cell claims or “false news”, read the LA Times article that appeared last week http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik–oz-stem-cell-20170213-story.html
The article followed a Dr. Oz television expose where he focused on charlatans victimizing the public with false information at extremely outrageous fee schedules. The egregious behavior stemmed (no pun intended) from mostly California based clinics but Texas was another state exposed. For those who read this Blog, you are familiar with the false advertising of “Stem Cell Clinics” highlighting regenerative medicine via Amniotic Fluid for arthritis in Illinois, that I have repeatedly taken to task. To repeat, while there may be living cells when amniotic fluid is harvested, following collection, processing, sterilizing, irradiating, freezing and fast thawing, there are no living or viable stem cells in the pat being offered as a regenerative alternative. Dr. Oz took his expose a lot further calling attention to false claims without medical evidence wherein the so called regenerative medicine clinics he exposed offer treatment for every and any affliction of the human body.
Since the innovations introduced by Regenexx 10 years or so ago, interventional orthopedics has become an evidence based approach to sports medicine related injuries and as an alternative to a major surgical reconstruction or replacement for an arthritic or chronically injured bone or joint. I am a member of the Regenexx network and, have continued to compile and contribute scientific evidence to support the Regenexx mission. Our menu of surgical alternatives is directed to afflictions of the musculoskeletal system.
A patient attempting to postpone or avoid a major orthopedic procedure for an arthritic joint and return to a relatively symptom free functional quality of life may find legitimate, well intentioned and evidence based regenerative medicine and interventional cellular orthopedic initiatives. I am proud to be one of those clinical settings
Next week, I will complete my interview with Dr Mitchell Sheinkop, part two-focusing on common athletic injuries amenable to cellular orthopedics and joint condition amenable to stem cell intervention.
To schedule an appointment call (312) 475-1893
To visit my web site go to www.sheinkopmd.com
To watch my webinar visit www.ilcellulartherapy.com
Tags: Bone Marrow Concentrate, Clinical Studies, Clinical Trial. Mitchell B. Sheinkop, Concentrated Stem Cell Plasma, Interventional Orthopedics, Mesenchymal Stem Cell, regenerative medicine, stem cell treatment
Dec 19, 2016
I use bone marrow derived stem cells because they have been proven to be most effective at treating orthopedic conditions when compared to adipose derived stem cells. There have been 13 papers published showing bone marrow superiority to adipose tissue in regards to treating orthopedic conditions and to the best of my knowledge, none reporting adipose derived results for arthritis. In addition to Adult Mesenchymal Stem Cells, bone marrow has 1,000-10,000x more hematopoietic stem cells than adipose tissue; the former is necessary for muscle repair. Recently, we learned that bone marrow also has osteochondral reticular cells which are not found in adipose tissue and serve as orthopedic repair cells. While adipose tissue and bone marrow both have stem cells, the skeletomuscular specific cells only found in bone marrow make it the best at treating orthopedic conditions. I don’t have a stake in doing bone marrow derived stem cells, I practice evidence based medicine and do what’s been shown to provide the best results. If with continued research something superior to bone marrow derived stem cells becomes available, then I will gladly adopt that protocol.
http://www.regenexx.com/fat-vs-bone-marrow-stem-cell-video/
- As I have reported on this Blog many times, research has shown the amniotic fluid samples being marketed as having stem cells actually do not have any viable stem cells when received and viewed in the laboratory. I do use amniotic fluid concentrate from time to time for its concentrated hyaluronic acid effect.
http://www.regenexx.com/amniotic-stem-cells-great-deception/
- Since we manually process bone marrow when aspirated, I am able to customize PRP which we call SCP or super concentrated platelets. The ubiquitous beside centrifuge only has one setting for volume and concentration so those using this approach are treating every patient without concern for individual differences. With the addition of the Abbott Ruby Hemocytometer, I am able to customize the treatment of the individual patient. We can concentrate our SCP from 3-40X over baseline-with or without red or white blood cells. From my outcomes data base, I know what volume and concentration works best for treating the various body parts.
- We’ve developed HD BMC or high dose bone marrow concentrate which is far superior to that produced with bedside centrifuges used by most claiming expertise in Regenerative Medicine
- I perform BMAs in compliance with the peer-reviewed literature recommendations as well as in keeping with my internal best practices research to maximize MSC yield. As stated, I count cells and know the quality in addition to the quantity of the injectate. Most doctors don’t count cells and have no idea what dose they are giving their patients
Tags: adipose tissue, amniotic fluid, arthritis, BMA, bone marrow, Bone Marrow Concentrate, Clinical Studies, Clinical Trial. Mitchell B. Sheinkop, Interventional Orthopedics, Mesenchymal Stem Cell, MSC, PRP, Regenerative, SCP, stem cells
Dec 1, 2016
Actually, that future started last week when we used a more aggressive PRP adjunct at the time of two Bone Marrow Concentrate/ Stem Cell interventions; one for an arthritic hip and the other, in an arthritic knee. More accurate and descriptive would be a Bone Marrow Concentrate/Adult Mesenchymal Stem Cell/ Hematopoietic Stem Cell/ Growth Factor Concentrate/Platelet Rich Plasma/Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonist cellular orthopedic intervention to an arthritic joint but even I get confused, so I will stick to cellular orthopedics and Bone Marrow Concentrate.
It would seem from current Regenerative Medicine Science, that while concentrated and activated Platelet Rich Plasma alone has not been provided a predictable and reliable independent approach to arthritis, when aggressively used in conjunction with stem cell interventions, PRP significantly enhances the results in the short term. It will require another several years to determine if what we are seeing in the short term will continue to improve our outcomes in the long run. I am not waiting as concentrating and activating the platelets will cause no harm; and if there is the promise of long term benefits when used as an adjunct both at the time of the Bone Marrow collection, concentration and intervention as well as again in two to five days, there is no reason not to proceed.
What about the future? While we have been great advocates of counting cells at the time of the stem cell intervention, new tools are being introduced to allow us to better customize that which we inject after concentrating and processing of the bone marrow. We now will be able to get a more accurate count of that which is present in the concentrated and processed injectate prior to the intervention and add bone marrow or platelets if indicated.
Are Mesenchymal Stem cells really Stem Cells? Professor Arnold Caplan of Case Western Reserve is widely considered the father of mesenchymal stem cells. He now takes the view that MSCs aren’t stem cells and that he should have never given them that name. He also believes that the primary function of these cells is paracrine, so he calls them “medicinal signaling cells”. To save you the trouble, paracrine is defined as “a form of cell-cell communication in which a cell produces a signal to induce changes in nearby cells.” I am not negating the importance of mesenchymal stem cells, rather I want the reader to better understand the role of each component involved with regenerative medicine. It was Professor Caplan’s prodding that in part is responsible for my having entered the discipline of interventional orthopedics. Long ago, we became friends as team mates of the Roosevelt High School championship football team in Chicago; and our professional paths, while parallel, he in basic orthopedic research while I chose orthopedic surgery finally crossed again five years ago.
To learn more about the basic science behind Cellular Orthopedics or to find out about how you might postpone or avoid a Total Joint replacement for an arthritic joint, schedule a consultation (312) 475 1893
Tags: arthritis, athletes, bone marrow, Bone Marrow Concentrate, cellular orthopedics, Clinical Studies, Concentrated Stem Cell Plasma, Growth Factor Concentrate, Growth Factors, Hematopoietic Stem Cell, Hip Replacement, Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonist, knee arthritis, Mesenchymal Stem Cell, Mitchell B. Sheinkop MD, Orthopedics, Osteoarthritis, paracrine, Platelet Rich Plasma, Professor Arnold Caplan, PRP, Regenerative Pain Center, stem cells
Nov 10, 2016
I am receiving increased requests for my Outcomes Data following a Bone Marrow Concentrate intervention for osteoarthritis of the hip. There is a paucity of said outcomes data in the scientific literature in part because of the relatively recent introduction of Regenerative Medicine for Osteoarthritis. I believe equally important is the fact that I was one of the first orthopedic surgeons to embrace the practice and remain one of the few in the subspecialty who practices evidence based medicine through the integration of clinical research with a clinical practice. Perhaps the recent presidential campaign, where honesty took a beating across the US, is responsible for the heightened patient awareness of the charlatans victimizing the public when it comes to Regenerative Medicine.
There is no question that there is value in facts and that is why my cellular orthopedic initiative is evidence based. Earlier this week, owing to these patient inquiries about my particular data base results when it comes to stem cells and growth factor for the hip, I reviewed my data base. There are now just over 150 patients with osteoarthritis of the hip who have undergone a Bone Marrow Concentrate intervention of the hip. The introduction of those bone marrow derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Growth factors has the potential to relieve pain, improve function, increase motion, regenerate the cartilage, alter the natural history of the arthritic joint, and delay, perhaps help avoid a hip replacement.
In order to qualify for submission to an orthopedic journal or scientific meeting, orthopedic data must be statistically significant with greater than a two-year follow-up. Our numbers will reach those criteria by January 1, so I thought I would present the preliminary data in this Blog format.
Of the 150 arthritic hips with grade 2 and 3 osteoarthritis at the time of the intervention over the past four years, 92% of patents on average, reported a clinically important improvement in hip-related pain after 1 year while 1% reported worsening. To the best of my knowledge, one patient in the group progressed to grade 4 osteoarthritis and elected to undergo a Total Hip Replacement. As far as Hip-Related function after a minimum of 1 year, 90% of patients reported a clinically significant improvement while 1% reported worsening. Of importance is the fact that of the 9% who initially showed no detectable change in hip-related function, all 9 were significantly improved by a booster intervention.
During my four and one half year, Interventional Orthopedic practice, I have learned that when a patient doesn’t reach a sought-after goal while under observation, a repeat intervention be it Platelet Rich Plasma or a Bone Marrow Concentrate, is a very important part of achieving success. Herein is the basis for my integration of a clinical research initiative with timely follow-up as contrasted with a procedure, a bill and a goodbye. If you want to learn more about evidence based Cellular Orthopedics be it for an arthritic hip or knee, call and schedule a consultation.
312 475 1893
Tags: arthritis, Bone Marrow Concentrate, Clinical Studies, Clinical Trial. Mitchell B. Sheinkop, Hip Arthritis, Hip pain, Hip Replacement, hip surgery, Interventional Orthopedics, Orthopedic Care, Osteoarthritis
Oct 27, 2016
I recently received the yearly publication from the Orthopedic and Rheumatology Institute of the Cleveland Clinic; the latter recognized as one of the 10 most prestigious orthopedic centers in the nation. Every year the publication, a marketing exercise by the Cleveland Clinic, focuses on certain subspecialty areas within the discipline of the care and treatment of the musculoskeletal system. The obvious purpose of such a yearly event is to recruit referrals from practicing orthopedic surgeons and rheumatologists as well as the medical community in general.
This year the focus was on Adult Total Hip Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis and Adult Unilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis. I will summarize the results; let’s start with the hip:
“Hip-Related Pain 1 Year After Surgery: “on average, 92% of patients reported clinically important improvement in hip-related pain after 1 year, while 1% reported worsening (7% showed no detectable change in hip-related pain).”
“On average, 90% of patients reported a clinically important improvement in hip-related function after 1 year, while 1% reported worsening (9% showed no detectable change in hip-related function).”
The knee doesn’t fare as well:
“On average, 85% of patients reported a clinically important improvement in knee-related pain after 1 year, while 2% reported worsening (13% showed no detectable change in knee-related pain).”
“On average, 82% of patients reported a clinically important improvement in knee-related function after 1 year, while 2% reported worsening (16% showed no detectable change in knee-related function).”
The data was derived from patient self-reported scores collected during office visits up to 6 months before and 1 year after surgeries performed.
In my practice, every patient who undergoes a Bone Marrow Concentrate intervention is entered into an outcomes data base with both subjective and objective data points measured. It is quite comprehensive and numbers over 500 patients extending over a span now of 4 and ½ years. While the Cleveland Clinic report is based on subjective parameters and ours on both subjective and objective scores, I am able to extract subjective measures alone. I am pleased to report that in the case of the hip and the knee, our outcomes with a needle are equal to or better than those of the major surgery with a scalpel. Then factor in the prompt rehabilitation of a stem cell procedure compared with the prolonged rehabilitation inherent in a joint replacement. Lastly, consider the relative absence of complications of a stem cell intervention compared to the morbidity and mortality of a joint replacement.
Perhaps of greater significance to the stated advantage of a Bone Marrow Concentrate procedure for Osteoarthritis is the fact that no bridges are burned. If the patient is not satisfied at one year or five, a stem cell procedure may be repeated with a needle. If the arthritis progresses to an advanced stage, the fall back option is a joint replacement. The only choice following an unsatisfactory joint replacement is to accept the surgically induced impairment or undergo a risky revision surgery with a high likelihood of a complication or less than satisfactory outcome. Call 312 475 1893 to schedule an appointment today.
For more information watch my Regenerative Medicine Webinar Video
Tags: arthritis, Bone Marrow Concentrate, Clinical Studies, Clinical Trial. Mitchell B. Sheinkop, Hip Replacement, Interventional Orthopedics, joint replacement, knee replacement, Orthopedic Care, Orthopedics
