A Ginza clinic providing knee joint regenerative medicine and regenerative aesthetics

Reservation
TEL

Can an MRI Predict Stem Cell Therapy Results for Knee OA? First Author Dr. Junya Higuchi explains

Can a pre-treatment MRI tell us what will happen after stem cell therapy? The paper’s first author explains

Regenerative Therapy 2020 paper by first author Junya Higuchi on intra-articular autologous adipose-derived stem cells for knee osteoarthritis
The paper discussed in this article (Regenerative Therapy, 2020, Vol. 14, pp. 332-340 — the English-language journal of the Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine). Dr. Junya Higuchi, director of Ginza YR Clinic, is its first author.
© 2020 The Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. Reproduced under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

What the study found

At present, a pre-treatment MRI alone cannot accurately predict what will change after stem cell therapy.

The study did find that pre-treatment MRI findings — cartilage damage, osteophytes and bone marrow lesions — were associated with some of the clinical scores measured afterwards. The direction of that association ran opposite to what the research team had expected.

Note: this was a retrospective observational study without a control group. It does not establish or guarantee efficacy or safety.

When people consider regenerative medicine for knee osteoarthritis, the first question is usually whether it works at all.

But two people can receive the same treatment and have very different experiences afterwards. So is there anything we can know in advance?

That is exactly the question behind this study, published in 2020 in Regenerative Therapy, the English-language journal of the Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine.

Key points

34 patients and 57 knees, all Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 to 4 (advanced to end-stage)
VAS, KOOS-pain and KOOS-symptoms reached roughly 70 to 80 percent of their six-month average change within the first month
Scores related to daily activities and sports changed more slowly
Pre-treatment MRI findings were associated with some clinical scores, but in the opposite direction to the team’s hypothesis
No significant association was found for cell count, culture period or patient age
Among the four patients who had a follow-up MRI, symptom change and structural change on imaging did not match
The discussion section attributes the clinical changes mainly to anti-inflammatory effects rather than tissue repair

Study overview

Title Associations of clinical outcomes and MRI findings in intra-articular administration of autologous adipose-derived stem cells for knee osteoarthritis
Journal Regenerative Therapy (2020), Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine
Design Retrospective observational study, no control group
Where conducted A medical institution in Japan (not Ginza YR Clinic)
Participants Clinical scores: 34 patients, 57 knees. Pre-treatment MRI available: 19 patients, 34 knees
Inclusion criteria Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 to 4, unresponsive to other conservative treatments
Mean age 67.5 years (10 men, 24 women)
Treatment Intra-articular injection of cultured autologous adipose-derived stem cells
Cells injected Approximately 82.6 million on average
Assessment points Before injection, then at 1, 3 and 6 months
Role of our director First author
DOI 10.1016/j.reth.2020.04.003

Retrospective observational study means the medical records of people who had already been treated were reviewed after the fact. Because there was no untreated control group, the influence of natural progression and placebo effects cannot be ruled out. In addition, 319 patients and 486 joints were treated at that institution during the same period; this study analysed only the 34 patients and 57 knees for whom written consent was obtained, so some selection bias may be present.

The Kellgren-Lawrence classification grades osteoarthritis severity from 0 to 4 based on X-ray findings. This study covered grades 3 and 4, which correspond to advanced and end-stage disease. Early and mild cases (grades 0 to 2) were not included.

Finding 1: pain changed mainly in the first month

The study tracked change using two measures.

VAS is a 0 to 10 scale on which patients rate their own pain. A lower number means less pain.

KOOS is an international questionnaire that scores the knee across five domains: pain, symptoms, activities of daily living, sports and recreation, and quality of life. A higher number means a better state.

The figures reported over six months were as follows.

Measure Before injection At 6 months
VAS (pain) 6.1 on average 3.5 on average
KOOS (total) 54.4 on average 64.6 on average

Beyond how much people improved, when the improvement appeared is also worth noting. On the study’s averages, most of the improvement in pain and symptoms appeared within the first month after injection. For VAS, KOOS-pain and KOOS-symptoms, the average improvement at one month already accounted for roughly 70 to 80 percent of the average improvement over six months. By contrast, scores for daily activities and for sports and recreation improved more slowly, emerging gradually over time. Overall, pain and symptoms improved relatively early, while daily activities and physical function improved step by step.

More telling than the numbers themselves is when the change appeared.

VAS, KOOS-pain and KOOS-symptoms reached roughly 70 to 80 percent of their six-month average change within the first month.

This does not mean that 70 to 80 percent of patients improved, nor that pain fell by 70 to 80 percent. It means that most of the average change recorded over six months had already occurred by the end of the first month.

KOOS-activities of daily living and KOOS-sports and recreation, by contrast, changed gradually.

Pain shifts first. Function follows later.

Even when pain eases, stairs, long walks and sport do not necessarily become easier at the same time.

Finding 2: MRI findings were associated with outcomes, but in the opposite direction

This is the heart of the study, and the part that needs the most careful reading.

Hypothesis
What the team expected
Patients with milder damage should show the greater improvement.

Result
The opposite happened
On several scores, the group with more advanced damage was more likely to reach the improvement threshold.

The 34 knees of 19 patients who had a pre-treatment MRI were scored using MOAKS.

Patients were not divided by how much they improved, but by whether each score reached its MCID.

MCID (minimal clinically important difference) is the smallest change a patient can actually perceive as meaningful. The study used each score’s MCID to sort knees into an improved group and a poorly improved group. For VAS, the MCID was set at 2.0.

The results were as follows.

The group reaching MCID on VAS had higher scores for the extent of cartilage loss and for osteophytes
The group reaching MCID on KOOS-activities of daily living had higher scores for the size of bone marrow lesions and for osteophytes
The group reaching MCID on KOOS-sports and recreation had higher scores for bone marrow lesion size, cartilage loss size and the proportion of full-thickness cartilage loss

Findings in the meniscus, ligaments and tendons, synovium and periarticular structures showed no significant association with any score.

The paper describes these data as implying that the stem cell therapy provided some beneficial effect even for patients whose disease had already advanced.

This does not mean “the worse the knee, the better it works”

There are three reasons.

1
Everyone in the study was grade 3 or 4
Early and mild cases were never included. This is a comparison within the advanced-to-end-stage range only.

2
The paper states its own limits
The discussion notes that patient satisfaction was not measured. Patients with severe pain beforehand may remain dissatisfied because of residual pain or symptoms, even when their scores improve.

3
The sample is small
The MRI analysis covered only 19 patients and 34 knees. The paper’s conclusion states plainly that clinical studies with larger numbers of patients and more varied data are needed to predict therapeutic effects.

MOAKS is an international scoring system for semi-quantitative assessment of knee structures on MRI. It divides the knee into 14 subregions.

Bone marrow lesions (BMLs) are changes inside the bone beneath the cartilage. They can only be seen on MRI and do not appear on X-rays.

Finding 3: no association with cell count, culture period or age

The study also examined factors other than MRI findings.

Factor Association with outcome
Patient age No significant association
Cell culture period No significant association
Number of cells injected No significant association

It is worth noting that this study was not designed as a trial comparing different cell doses, and the number of cells injected was not randomly assigned.

So “no association was found” is not the same as “cell count has no effect on what happens after treatment”.

Finding 4: symptoms and imaging did not move together

This is the part of the study that deserves the most attention.

Of all 57 knees, only four patients also had an MRI six months after treatment. The number is small, but the result is instructive.

Case Symptoms MRI findings
Patient 1 (female, 74) Improved No clear change apart from bone marrow lesions
Patient 2 (male, 65) Some scores improved No clear change apart from bone marrow lesions
Patient 3 (male, 55) Did not improve Bone marrow lesions decreased and the medial meniscus increased in size
Patient 4 (male, 54) Improved No structural improvement observed

The results of these four patients show that even when a knee feels better, a corresponding change will not necessarily be visible on MRI.

The researchers believe the reduction in pain may be related to reduced inflammation inside the knee joint. The paper also notes that several studies have reported improvement in pain and symptoms after treatment, but there is not yet sufficient evidence that cartilage or the meniscus grows back. A knee that feels more comfortable reflects an improvement in symptoms. Whether cartilage or the meniscus has actually been repaired still needs further examination and research to confirm.

Safety

No serious adverse events or complications were reported during the six-month observation period.

Event reported during the study Cases
Joint effusion 6
Pain 5
Local heat 1
Stiffness 1
Infection 0

All of these reactions were transient and resolved completely within a few days to one week in every patient.

Given the limited size of the study and the length of the observation period, however, no judgement about long-term safety can be drawn from this result.

The physician behind this study

Dr. Junya Higuchi, director of Ginza YR Clinic, is the first author of this paper.

He trained in orthopaedic surgery at the University of Tokyo, building clinical and surgical experience across joint, spine, trauma and sports medicine, and earned his doctorate in medicine at the same university’s graduate school through research on mesenchymal stem cells.

This work was also presented at the Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine in the same year, 2020.

What this study tells us

First, change has an order to it. Pain and symptoms shift first; daily activities and sport follow later.

Second, symptom relief is not cartilage regeneration. The paper infers that the clinical changes are more likely to stem from reduced inflammation than from tissue repair. Going into treatment expecting the knee to be restored is likely to lead to a gap between expectation and outcome.

Third, accurate prediction is not yet possible. Pre-treatment MRI findings were associated with later change, but imaging alone is not enough to predict the outcome for an individual patient. That is the paper’s own conclusion.

The value of this paper lies not in showing treatment results, but in stating clearly what remains unknown.

This article is provided for general medical information and does not guarantee any particular treatment outcome. Symptoms and progress vary between individuals. Please consult a physician for details.

So is pre-treatment assessment still worthwhile?

Yes — not to predict the outcome, but to confirm the following.

Whether knee osteoarthritis is genuinely the cause of the symptoms
What stage the joint degeneration has reached, and whether surgery should now be considered
Whether there is anything that makes intra-articular injection unsuitable

Knee pain does not always come from osteoarthritis. Rheumatoid arthritis, septic arthritis and referred pain from the lumbar spine can all present as pain in the knee.

At our clinic, the physician reviews the course of symptoms, physical examination findings, imaging and medical history together before judging on an individual basis whether regenerative medicine is appropriate. If it is not, we say so.

Frequently asked questions

Q

Do I need an MRI before stem cell therapy?

A

Knee osteoarthritis is usually assessed by combining symptoms, physical examination and X-rays, so an MRI is not required for everyone. A physician may consider one when the bone marrow, meniscus, ligaments or other structures inside the joint need closer examination, or when other conditions have to be ruled out.

Q

Aren’t X-rays enough on their own?

A

X-rays show joint space, osteophytes and bone deformity, but changes inside the bone beneath the cartilage — bone marrow lesions — do not appear on them. Whether an MRI is needed is decided from the symptoms and examination findings.

Q

When does the effect appear?

A

In this study, improvement in VAS, KOOS-pain and KOOS-symptoms appeared mainly in the first month after injection. For these three scores, the average improvement at one month already accounted for roughly 70 to 80 percent of the average improvement at six months. Scores related to daily activities and sport, by contrast, improved more slowly, emerging gradually over time. The degree and timing of improvement vary between individuals.

Q

VAS fell from 6.1 to 3.5. Does that mean the same will happen to me?

A

Those are average values across 34 patients and 57 knees, limited to grade 3 and 4 disease. Individual variation was wide: the mean improvement in VAS was 2.6 with a standard deviation of 4.0. The figures do not indicate that everyone will change in the same way.

Q

Does more severe damage mean a better result?

A

It should not be read that way. The study did observe a higher proportion reaching MCID in the group with higher cartilage loss and osteophyte scores, but early and mild cases were never part of the sample. The paper also notes that satisfaction was not measured and that the sample size was limited.

Q

Would injecting more cells produce a better result?

A

In this study, no significant association was found between the number of cells injected and the outcome. That said, the study was not a trial comparing cell doses and the cell count was not randomly assigned, so it cannot be concluded that cell count makes no difference.

Q

Will cartilage grow back after the injection?

A

Among the four patients who had an MRI six months after treatment, symptom change and structural change on imaging did not match. The paper infers that the clinical changes are more likely to come from reduced inflammation than from tissue repair.

If you would like your knee assessed

Physician explaining a knee MRI to a patient during consultation at Ginza YR Clinic
Consultations review symptoms, examination findings, imaging and medical history together (stock image)

At Ginza YR Clinic we review symptoms, physical examination findings, imaging and medical history together, then explain the options available to you. If regenerative medicine is not appropriate in your case, we will tell you so directly.

► Autologous adipose-derived stem cell therapy

Details of the treatment, fees, risks and side effects are set out on the page above.

Enquiries and appointments

By appointment only. Self-pay treatment, not covered by insurance.

About our practice

Attending physician

Dr. Junya Higuchi, Director, Ginza YR Clinic

PhD in Medicine, University of Tokyo. Board-certified orthopaedic surgeon, Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Certified physician, Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine. Certified sports doctor, Japan Sport Association.

Regenerative medicine provision plan registration numbers

Autologous adipose-derived stem cell therapy (joint disease): PB3250224
Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy (chronic arthritis): PB3250225
Specified cell-processed product manufacturing: FC3250098

Registration numbers for other treatments appear on their respective pages.

A registration number indicates that notification under the Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine has been completed and the provision plan accepted. It does not mean the government has approved or guaranteed the efficacy or safety of the treatment.

Medical information notice

This article is provided for general medical information and does not guarantee diagnosis, efficacy or safety. Symptoms and their course vary between individuals.

References
  • Higuchi J, Yamagami R, Matsumoto T, Terao T, Inoue K, Tsuji S, Maenohara Y, Matsuzaki T, Chijimatsu R, Omata Y, Yano F, Tanaka S, Saito T. Associations of clinical outcomes and MRI findings in intra-articular administration of autologous adipose-derived stem cells for knee osteoarthritis. Regen Ther. 2020;14:332-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reth.2020.04.003

Last updated: 2 September 2026

“`

TOP
TEL