# Regenexx Stem Cell Treatment



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Back in 1997 I tore my ACL skiing. When that happened I also tore some meniscus cartilage in my knee which had to be removed. So since 1997 I have been rubbing bone on bone at the joint and it finally has caught up with me...bone spurs and osteoarthritis have set in.

It hasn't kept me from biking yet, but I do occasionally get knee pain when biking. Sometimes during the ride and sometimes after the ride.

Doc says I'm a candidate for knee replacement, but wants me to hold off cuz I'm too young right now...45. Wants me to wait until I'm 55 or 60 so the knee replacement outlives me.

Not wanting to go through a knee replacement while the joint degenerates more and more over the next 10-15 years I have been investigating an alternative fix. In my search I stumbled up this. Cost is about $5,000, not covered by insurance, plus a few weeks on crutches and a few weeks of physical therapy. Wonder if anyone here has had experience with stem cell therapy for knee or other joints?

Knee Stem Cell Therapy - Surgery & Replacement Alternative


----------



## ovpt (Apr 20, 2010)

there is a reason its not covered by insurance. it is because it has little evidence it does anything. you say you have occasional knee pain, with that said you should not be looking at replacement. replacement is more of an option when the symptoms are pretty constant and you can do your favorite activities. studies have shown increased strength and flexibility significantly reduce knee pain in arthritic knees. hips not so much.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Actually if you browse through the site there is evidence that it does work.

http://www.regenexx.com/outcomes/

The doctor is the one the one that told me that I am a candidate for a future knee replacement based on his review of my x-rays and MRI's. Based on the fact that I'm a fairly active person, it's only safe to say that my osteoarthritis is only going to get worse as the years pass by.

With that said. I'm not looking for anyone's opinion on whether or not it's the right or wrong thing to do. I'm looking for feedback from someone on this forum that has maybe went this route for knee, hip or other parts of their body.


----------



## ovpt (Apr 20, 2010)

i do not want to be argumentative. for informational purposes only on research. their outcome graph has several flaws and it fails to be scientifically accurate in terms of research. 

1. they obviously cherry picked their candidates since the average bmi was 27.6 which less than the general public for that age group.

2. they admit to cherry picking data in the graphs with stating "reported relief at VARIOUS time points" 

3. even with cherry picking, their mean relief was only 55% which is consistent with placebo double blind trials.

conclusion. as consumers we need to be skeptical and diligent when it comes to fancy packaged medical care making big claims. look for double blind research with large sample populations. not to say they may not be something with stem cell. their is a lot of promising research on stem cells that is good outside of the osteoarthritis realm. just be aware there are lots of snake oil salesmen these days which has directly contributed to the chronic pain epidemic by nocebic tactics.


----------



## Xylx (Mar 18, 2005)

In 1997 I had surgery for a meniscus tear at the Steadman-Hawkins clinic in Vail. I had an excellent recover and am lucky to have only slight knee problems almost 20 years on. When I had the surgery the doctor told me they were five years away from growing replacement cartilage and being able to implant it. Still waiting.


----------



## kinsler (Sep 13, 2011)

*Aci*



Xylx said:


> In 1997 I had surgery for a meniscus tear at the Steadman-Hawkins clinic in Vail. I had an excellent recover and am lucky to have only slight knee problems almost 20 years on. When I had the surgery the doctor told me they were five years away from growing replacement cartilage and being able to implant it. Still waiting.


It's been around for awhile- Autologous cartilage implantation. Cartilage is harvested from you knee, sent to a lab, chondrocytes are expanded and cartilage is implanted at a second surgery. Doesn't work though if you already arthritis/joint space narrowing.


----------



## mbell (Sep 9, 2008)

@OVPT has made some great points for you to consider. (Whether you want to hear it or not)

There are too many companies trying to sell unproven technologies based on "buzz words." Personally, I sell stem cells for a different, yet validated, medical application. (Outcomes aren't as ideal as anticipated, but still acceptable)

Before you spend your next bike money... talk to your MD about trying Carticel or Synvisc, or another similar product that may be covered by your insurance.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

I'm not worried about insurance covering it or not. I have the funds to cover the ~$5k if I need to.

But before I invest $5k I want to do all the research I can to find out if it may be worth it.


----------



## intheways (Apr 19, 2004)

Have you checked into a unloader brace?


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

I have one. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Martinb46 (Nov 16, 2016)

OP, I'm 46 and about to have a TKR but I've been exactly where you've been. First of all, as another poster said, I would try Synvisk shots before I considered trying the stem cell. I had very good results with Synvisk shots for several years. They will eventually lose effectiveness but I bought myself several years. For clarification by "had very good results" I mean that they reduced the pain in my knee to the point where my performance was not inhibited. My knee still hurt but I could still do pretty much whatever I wanted at a very high level for a 40 something amateur athlete (Run, mountain bike, road bike, Crossfit)

So, I would definitely try that first. It takes about 3-4 weeks for it to take effect but you will know for sure if it's going to work for you within a month. 

On the stem cell.......eventually (3 years) Synvisk shots ran their course and no longer worked resulting in not getting any pain relief and starting to see performance decline. At that point I tried the stem cell injection. I don't know what brand it was but it's the same as you are talking about. (Take bone marrow out of your hip and spin it down and get the stem cells and then inject into your knee). I had a very good outcome from this. Within a few weeks I was doing much better and within a couple of months (the effect of the stem cells is not instant, it takes a month or 2 to work) my knee felt better than it had in several years and I was able to get back very close to the best shape I had ever been in. 

Unfortunately, about 12 months later I tore the little bit of meniscus that I had left and had to have another surgery to clean up. Since I had such good results with the first stem cell injection, doc suggested that they repeat it. The second one didn't work at all. I'm guessing that at this point the joint was just too trashed (I'm completely bone on bone on the medial side)

So in summary, try Synvisk first. After that's run it's course I personally would recommend trying stem cell unless you just want to go straight to TKR. As many have said, you'll know when it's time to pull trigger in TKR. I know others have said that stem cell doesn't work and studies don't support it. I would agree that studies don't yet fully support but I know it worked for me. My ortho is very well respected and he was very upfront that it was experimental. He said it had been proven to be very effective on other injuries but data did not necessarily support using it for OA in knees, however patients had reported very good results. He said they weren't exactly sure why it worked, as you cannot regrow cartilage in an arthritic knee. Said it was likely due to stem cells calming down the nerve endings, thereby reducing pain. 

Sorry to ramble, but it's a lot of info. Hope this helps


----------



## intheways (Apr 19, 2004)

prj71 said:


> I have one.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I should have guessed that if you are at TKR stage. I've seen some buzz about distraction braces, but I don't think really they are for high activity levels.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Martinb46 said:


> OP, I'm 46 and about to have a TKR but I've been exactly where you've been. First of all, as another poster said, I would try Synvisk shots before I considered trying the stem cell. I had very good results with Synvisk shots for several years. They will eventually lose effectiveness but I bought myself several years. For clarification by "had very good results" I mean that they reduced the pain in my knee to the point where my performance was not inhibited. My knee still hurt but I could still do pretty much whatever I wanted at a very high level for a 40 something amateur athlete (Run, mountain bike, road bike, Crossfit)
> 
> So, I would definitely try that first. It takes about 3-4 weeks for it to take effect but you will know for sure if it's going to work for you within a month.
> 
> ...


That helps. Good to hear the stem cell treatment worked for you.

I'm 45 right now but not at the TKR stage yet. I can do most anything except run. I've been rubbing bone on bone in the right knee since 1997 and have mild arthritis and sporadic episodes of discomfort right now but nothing that has put me down. I'm looking at the stem cell option as a way to avoid TKR. Thanks for sharing your experience.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## ovpt (Apr 20, 2010)

for educational purposes. if you have mild arthritis, you are not bone on bone. that would be severe and nearly complete disruption of the articular cartilage. 

just about everyone has mild arthritis at our age. its called aging. it is analogous to calling my grey hair degenerative hair disease. 

i hear a lot of docs flippantly say bone on bone which has significant and unnecessarily nocebic effects on patients. 

not trying to be a pain but words have meaning and most of the medical information people get is not accurate. just trying to dispel many myths that are not helping our society.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

No I'm bone on bone. Have been since 1997. I tore my ACL ligament and had half the meniscus cartilage removed. ACL was rebuilt with a piece of my hamstring. 

It's also visible on my x-rays along with bone spurs. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## ovpt (Apr 20, 2010)

you very well may be. just saying who ever tells you that you are bone on bone with mild arthritis doesnt have a clue what they are talking about. 

did you tear your acl in 1997? doing that and having a piece of meniscus removed doesnt make you bone on bone instantaneously, that would developed later and for possibly a myriad of other factors. 

just trying to put some common sense back into the medical world so please take no offense.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Ummm 4 orthopedic doctors that have reviewed my x-rays have told me that I'm rubbing bone on bone. 

I tore the ACL in 1997. Had it rebuilt with hamstring and lost half of my meniscus cartilage at the time.

I don't think you're adding any common sense. Your adding confusion. 


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## ovpt (Apr 20, 2010)

sorry for any confusion. you very well may be bone on bone but yet there is still a nice layer of synovial fluid between those bones. otherwise, if we are thinking in strictly mechanical ways, you should be in pain 24/7 and unable to do most basic activities. if it were only left up to strictly bone on bone, then logic would state you would be in pain with any weight bearing activity. just like if there is a bad bearing, then it will create a predictable problem.

let me state that your injury in 1997 did not lead to IMMEDIATE bone on bone. that is a progressive problem that MAY occur after such injury. i feel bad you have to go through this and i want to give you the most up to date research based facts. unfortunately most health care providers say stupid unsubstantiated things to patients. fact is you can not have mild arthritis and be bone on bone. they are complete opposites. everyone in our age group has mild arthritis. it is normal aging process. i have severe arthritis in my right ankle but yet, it doesnt hurt anymore. i have had back surgery with still having left over bulging disc above and below the surgical sight, but yet i am able to crash hard on my bike but not have any problems. i see many patients that have undergone a knee replacement and tell me their other "nonpainful" knee looks worse on xrays. just some food for thought.

again, no offense meant. i understand there is generally cognitive dissonance when medical beliefs are challenged. my goal is to educate with the most up to date research. yes, i am a geek and read many medical journals. please feel free to ask questions as my goal is to steer folks in the right direction and dispel many of the medical myths that are screwing us up. please look up "nocebo" and you may have a better understanding of what i am trying to say. sorry if i am not the most eloquent writer out there.


----------

