Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=62 Randomized Double-blind Treatment

Mesenchymal Stem Cell Augmentation in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Full Thickness Rotator Cuff Tear

Enrolled (actual)
62
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Mar 2025
Primary outcome: Primary: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score — 87; 89 score on a scale

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Mesenchymal stem cell augmentation in rotator cuff repair (Biological); Standard arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (Procedure)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Rush University Medical Center
Primary completion
May 2024

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score
87; 89

Summary

The primary objective of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without augmentation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Mesenchymal stem cells promote tissue regeneration by differentiating into adult cell lines and by supplying growth factors to their implanted environment. They have been shown to be effective in improving both overall healing and tendon integrity in rotator cuff repair. This study will follow 100 patients in the United States and track their clinical outcomes for at least one year post-operatively.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Patient is determined to have a full thickness rotator cuff tear (1-3 cm) or partial tear converted to a full-thickness tear-on the pre-operative MRI scan or found arthroscopically-and is scheduled to undergo surgical repair
  • Written informed consent is obtained

Exclusion Criteria

  • Revision surgery
  • Irreparable tear or partial repair
  • Any patient lacking decisional capability
  • Subscapularis involvement
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02484950). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search