Table 3.
Clinical scores before and after surgery
| Author | Scoring system | Pre-operative score | Post-operative score | Comparison between SG and CG | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SG | CG | SG | CG | |||
| Yamasaki, 2010 | Pain score | 14.7 (13 to 16) | 15.2 (14 to 17) | 17.0 (15 to 18) | 14.2 (12 to 15) | No direct statistical comparison was performed |
| Gangji, 2011 |
VAS Laseque index WOMAC |
32.8 ± 7.1 7.2 ± 1.2 NA |
46 ± 7.2 8.6 ± 1.4 NA |
20.8 ± 7.7 4.8 ± 1.8 NA |
49.8 8.7 NA |
SG showed improved VAS at 36 months and improved Laseque index in comparison with CG, while no improvement was indicated in WOMAC |
| Zhao, 2012 | HHS | NA | NA | NA | NA | The mean HHS in hips of ARCO stage IC, IIA, IIB, IIC in SG were higher, and the percent increase in hips of ARCO stage IIB and IIC were greater in SG |
| Sen, 2012 | HHS | 66.2 ± 13.0 | 65.7 ± 15.2 | 82.4 ± 9.2 | 77.4 ± 17.0 | SG had a higher HHS and its domains than CG |
| Rastogi, 2013 | HHS | 46.8 | 47.1 | 78.6 | 66.8 | There was no statistically significant difference between SG and CG in the degree of change of HHS |
| Liu, 2013 |
VAS HHS |
63.6 ± 9.5 63.6 ± 2.6 |
62.6 ± 6.6 64.6 ± 2.9 |
21.4 ± 9.4 81.8 ± 2.6 |
30.2 ± 6.4 76.5 ± 2.9 |
The magnitude of improvement in HHS and VAS were greater in SG |
| Lim, 2013 | HHS | NA | NA | NA | NA | No direct statistical comparison in scores between was performed |
| Ma, 2014 |
VAS WOMAC Laseque index |
35.6 ± 4.2 27.8 ± 4.2 9.6 ± 1.0 |
35.2 ± 3.4 24.8 9.8 |
16.9 ± 3.6 14.8 ± 3.0 5.8 ± 0.9 |
26.5 ± 2.6 21.5 7.0 |
No statistical differences were detected in all clinical scores |
| Tabatabaee, 2015 |
VAS WOMAC |
35.9 ± 4.5 32.0 ± 3.8 |
38.6 ± 4.6 35.9 ± 2.7 |
16.0 ± 3.7 9.7 ± 1.8 |
32.1 ± 4.1 27.2 ± 3.7 |
VAS and WOMAC were significantly lower in SG |
| Mao, 2015 | HHS | 62.7 ± 11.1 | 64.6 ± 8.6 | 88.1 ± 3.3 | 78.5 ± 8.7 | SG had higher improvement with regard of HHS compared with CG |
| Pilge, 2016 | MAP | 13.5 | 14.3 | 15.2 | 14.1 | MAP hip score improved post-operatively in SG but not in CG |
| Cruz-Pardos, 2016 | MAP | 13.6 | 14.1 | 14.9 ± 2.7 | 14.4 ± 2.8 | Similar MAP hip score in both groups post-operatively |
| Pepke, 2016 |
VAS HHS |
4.8 60.8 |
5.7 62.2 |
2.3 81.8 |
2.8 77.0 |
No significant differences were detected in VAS or HHS post-operatively |
| Hernigou, 2018 |
VAS HHS WOMAC |
40.5 ± 5.2 76 (65 to 82) 40 ± 4.6 |
41.2 ± 6.5 87.3 (80 to 90) 38 ± 5.2 |
1 year:12.0 ± 3.5 2 years:94 (85 to 100) 25 years:8.6 ± 2.3 |
1 year:27.0 ± 4.4 2 years:80.2(70 to 85) 25 years:12.5 ± 2.3 |
SG had better reduction in VAS and HHS in SG as compared with CG within 1 year post-operatively. However, No direct statistical comparison between groups in scores was performed with respect to long-term follow-up |
| Kang, 2018 | VAS | 48.0 ± 13.0 | 42.0 ± 11.0 | 23.0 | 21.0 | No significant differences were detected in VAS |
| Hauzeur, 2018 |
VAS WOMAC |
58.4 ± 4.5 10.9 |
46.7 ± 5.7 10.9 |
–7.7 ± 5.9 7.9 |
–2.3 ± 6.4 10.2 |
No significant differences were detected in VAS or WOMAC |
| Li, 2020 |
VAS WOMAC Laseque index |
40.0 (20 to 100) 21.0 (2 to 80) 9.0 (1 to 21) |
45.0 (20 to 100) 33 (8 to 91) 10.0 (3 to 20) |
10 (0 to 50) 8.0 (1 to 31) 4.0 (0 to 12) |
35 (10 to 70) 32.5 (2 to 72) 9.0 (0 to 18) |
VAS, Laseque index and WOMAC were overall better in SG than that in CG |
| Li, 2021 | HHS | 67.2 ± 9.2 | 68.5 ± 13.1 | 84.1 ± 14.2 | 72.8 ± 24.1 | SG had a higher HHS than CG, especially in HHS-Function Scores |
ARCO Association Research Circulation Osseous, CG control group, HHS Harris hip score, MAP Merle D’Aubigné and Postel score, VAS visual analogue scale, WOMAC Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index osteoarthritis scoring, SG stem cell group