Abstract
To compare the results of intramedullary transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells
(OECs) in the repair of spinal cord injury (SCI) in patients at multiple clinical centers, and to explore the
standardized transplantation procedures that suit clinical needs. Methods: The results of representative clinical
centers were collected and analyzed. Parameters including the concentration of cells, total number of cells,
choice of incision, site of transplantation, number of transplantation sites, advantages and disadvantages of
transplantation equipment, and postoperative management were compared to clarify impact on clinical outcomes.
Results: Four clinical cases were compared in this study: two Chinese centers, one Australian center, and one
European center; all cases employed intraspinal intramedullary intraspinal transplantation for the treatment of
chronic complete SCI. Cell implantation into the spinal cord parenchyma had certain effect on recovery in
chronic complete SCI. Concise surgery appeared to be more suitable for clinical application than precise and
complex injection procedures. An excessively large total volume of injection, long procedure time, and large
number of cell transplant injection points are possible reasons for suboptimal results of surgery. Sufficient
rehabilitation training after transplantation is necessary. Conclusion: Cell implantation into the spinal cord
parenchyma is effective for recovery of neurological function in chronic complete SCI patients. Concise surgery
appears to be more suitable for clinical application than precise and complex injection procedures, but improper
procedures may lead to ineffective results. Sufficient rehabilitation training post-surgery is necessary for the
integration of motor recovery.
Key words
olfactory ensheathing cells
Cite this article
Download Citations
Multi-Center Comparison of Olfactory Ensheathing Cell Intramedullary Transplantation for
Treatment of Complete Chronic Spinal Cord Injury[J]. Neural Injury and Functional Reconstruction. 2020, 15(2): 103-107
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}