Stem Cell Therapy for the Knee

What Dr. Strickland Offers

Five distinct stem-cell-related pathways exist in Dr. Strickland's practice, ranging from established autologous biologics in the operating room to research-stage clinical trials at HSS:

Each is detailed below. The honest framing across all of them: stem-cell-based products may modify symptoms in selected patients with mild-to-moderate disease over weeks to months. None has been shown to regrow hyaline cartilage in adult arthritic knees in any clinically meaningful way — a point Dr. Strickland makes a routine part of every conversation about biologics.

BMAC — Bone Marrow Stem Cells (Routine in Her Practice)

Bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) is the most-established stem-cell-based product in Dr. Strickland’s clinical practice. In her own words: “I have used bone marrow aspirate for years in the operating room to hopefully increase healing or decrease symptoms related to arthritis.”

BMAC is autologous — bone marrow aspirated from the patient’s iliac crest, processed at the bedside through an FDA-cleared device, and re-introduced the same day. It contains mesenchymal stromal cells, hematopoietic precursors, and a host of growth factors and cytokines. It operates under the FDA HCT/P 361 minimal-manipulation framework, which is fundamentally different from the regulatory status of allogeneic amniotic or umbilical products marketed by cash-pay clinics.

Where BMAC fits in Dr. Strickland’s practice

• Surgical adjunct (most common) — routinely used in the operating room to augment healing of cartilage repair, support meniscus repair, and similar applications where a stem-cell-rich injectate may improve the biologic environment alongside an evidence-based surgical procedure
• Research interest — BMAC combined with hyaluronic acid scaffolds is the substrate of an interesting one-step cartilage repair technique with multi-year follow-up reported in the international literature; the technique is not yet widely available in the US

The honest framing she gives every patient

BMAC may reduce pain and support function in selected patients with mild-to-moderate disease over months. It does not regrow hyaline cartilage. It is not a substitute for evidence-based cartilage repair (MACI, OATS), alignment correction (osteotomy), the MISHA implantable shock absorber, or joint replacement when those are indicated. The pre-injection conversation includes the realistic possibility that the injection does not work for you — that’s honest counseling, not pessimism.

Umbilical Stem Cell — Anticipated FDA Trial

Dr. Strickland has noted publicly that she hopes to participate in an FDA trial on umbilical stem cells. The relevant detail is the trial structure: an FDA-overseen study at a credentialed academic center under IRB approval, with the same investigational framing as the ASA and trials. This is anticipated / in process, not currently available — trial participation depends on protocol activation and your meeting trial-specific eligibility.

Umbilical cord-derived “stem cell” products offered outside of FDA trials — in cash-pay commercial clinics, often at high cost, often with cartilage-regeneration claims — are an entirely different product offered in an entirely different regulatory context. They are not the same as a trial-evaluated investigational product, and the FDA has issued enforcement actions against multiple operators marketing umbilical cord products.

Exosomes — The Next Frontier

Beyond cell-based products, there is growing research interest in exosomes — tiny sac-like structures formed inside cells that carry some of the cell’s proteins, DNA, and RNA. Certain exosomes have the potential to alter how cartilage cells respond to inflammation and may meaningfully improve treatment for arthritis if early findings hold up.

This is an active area of research and is not yet a clinical product. Dr. Strickland tracks the literature here closely; relevant published work includes “Exosomes in cartilage microenvironment regulation and cartilage repair” in Frontiers. The scientific reason it matters: delivering the cell’s active signaling molecules without the cell itself would simplify storage, dosing, and regulatory pathways — a fundamentally different approach from injecting cells directly.

For more, see Dr. Strickland’s patient-facing commentary: stem cells, exosomes & cartilage repair and the HSS Journal webinar on stem cells & scaffolds.

Lipogems — Trialed and Discontinued

Lipogems is an FDA-cleared device that processes a small autologous fat sample — obtained by mini-liposuction — through a closed system that fragments the tissue while preserving the stromal vascular fraction, then re-injects it the same day. Adipose tissue is rich in mesenchymal stromal cells, and the technology is well-engineered. The regulatory status (autologous, minimal-manipulation, same-day) sits in the same category as BMAC.

However, Dr. Strickland trialed Lipogems several years ago and chose not to continue offering it routinely. In her own words: “Several years ago, I trialed Lipogems, a fat-derived stem cell, but I didn’t see significant improvement in patients, and it was a lot of effort to obtain the fat from patients.”

That clinical experience — not generic skepticism — is why Lipogems is not part of her routine practice today.

Who Is a Good Candidate

Two different candidacy questions live on this page. Most patients asking “am I a candidate?” are asking about BMAC in the operating room (as a surgical adjunct); a smaller subset are asking about HSS clinical-trial enrollment. The criteria are different.

BMAC as a surgical adjunct in the OR

Generally appropriate for:

• Mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis on standing weight-bearing x-rays (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2–3 typically)
• Patients who have already given evidence-based foundational care a fair trial (PT, weight optimization where applicable, NSAIDs / topicals, activity modification, hyaluronic acid where indicated)
• Patients with realistic expectations: symptom modification possible, cartilage regeneration not
• Patients without focal full-thickness cartilage defects requiring surgical repair (those need MACI, OATS, or osteochondral allograft)
• Patients without severe malalignment (those need alignment correction first)
• Patients without mechanical block (locking, true catching) — that needs arthroscopic treatment of the underlying problem
• Patients without active infection or other contraindications to injection

HSS clinical-trial enrollment (anticipated CartiSTEM umbilical)

Trial enrollment criteria are highly specific to each protocol but typically require:

• A specific stage of disease — usually mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis on standardized imaging; end-stage bone-on-bone arthritis is generally excluded
• Age range — most trials have upper and lower age limits
• BMI within trial limits
• Prior treatment requirements — many trials require failed conservative care first
• No major mechanical symptoms — catching, locking, true mechanical block usually excluded
• Acceptable alignment — severe varus or valgus deformity often excluded
• No active infection, malignancy, or autoimmune disease per protocol
• Willingness to comply with structured trial follow-up — protocol visits, outcome questionnaires, imaging
• Full informed consent — understanding investigational status, possibility of no benefit, unknown long-term effects, and possibility of placebo arm

Most patients are not eligible for any current HSS trial. That is not a failure — it is what makes trial-derived evidence meaningful in the first place. Patients interested in trial participation are referred to the appropriate HSS research coordinator after a clinical evaluation; trial activation status changes over time. There is no way to “buy in” to a trial.

When stem cell options are not the right answer

• End-stage bone-on-bone arthritis — the conversation should turn to partial or total joint replacement
• Severe malalignment — alignment correction (osteotomy) or arthroplasty is more likely to help than any injection
• Mechanical symptoms from a torn meniscus, loose body, or unstable cartilage flap — arthroscopic treatment of the mechanical problem is appropriate first
• Large focal full-thickness cartilage defects — MACI, OATS, or osteochondral allograft is the evidence-based option for focal defects, not a biologic injection
• Patients who have not yet tried evidence-based foundational care — structured PT, weight optimization, NSAIDs, and bracing where indicated come first
• Patients seeking a substitute for indicated surgery — if the imaging and exam support partial or total knee replacement, no injection has been shown to be a substitute when replacement is indicated
• Patients seeking cartilage regeneration — the realistic ceiling is symptom modification, not regeneration. Cartilage regeneration is a marketing claim, not a current clinical reality

What to Expect

BMAC as surgical adjunct

When BMAC is used during cartilage repair, meniscus repair, or other joint-preservation surgery, the bone marrow harvest happens at the same anesthesia event as the underlying surgery, the concentrate is added to the surgical site, and there is no separate recovery beyond what the underlying procedure requires. The biologic is an addition to the surgical plan, not a separate event for the patient.

HSS clinical trial enrollment

Trial-specific protocols vary, but the general structure for an IRB-approved HSS trial:

• Screening visit. Confirmation that you meet inclusion / exclusion criteria, including imaging review, history, exam, sometimes lab work
• Informed consent. Detailed written consent describing the investigational nature of the product, the placebo arm if applicable, the possibility of no benefit, unknown long-term effects, and the protocol-required follow-up commitment
• The injection. Outpatient procedure, typically under an hour. Specifics depend on the trial protocol (ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance for placement)
• Blinding (where applicable). In placebo-controlled trials, neither you nor the assessor knows which arm you are in
• Structured follow-up. Protocol-defined visits at standardized intervals, with validated outcome measurements and imaging at protocol-required time points
• Cost. Trial costs are typically covered by the sponsor — you do not pay thousands of dollars to participate. Insurance is generally not billed for the investigational product itself
• Withdrawal. You retain the right to withdraw from any trial at any time

This is what real research looks like. If a clinic is offering you a “clinical trial” that requires you to pay $8,000 up front and does not include a placebo arm, that is not a clinical trial — that is a marketing label.

Risks and Realistic Expectations

The risks reviewed for any stem cell pathway include both procedural risks and the realistic expectation framework:

• No benefit (common). A meaningful number of patients get no clinical benefit from any current cell-based product, including BMAC. This is the single most important “risk” to set expectations around — not a side effect, but the realistic possibility that the injection does not work for you
• Unknown long-term effects (research-stage). By definition, investigational products like upcoming umbilical stem cell trials have less long-term safety data than approved therapies. That is part of why they are investigational
• Bleeding or bruising at the harvest / injection site — usually minor and self-limiting
• Infection (rare) — any joint or tendon injection carries a small infection risk; sterile technique and ultrasound guidance minimize this
• Post-injection inflammatory flare — transient, typically 1–3 days
• For BMAC: additional iliac-crest aspiration site discomfort, rare hematoma, very rare iliac-site complications
• For Lipogems / adipose-derived: additional fat-harvest site bruising and rare local complications
• For allogeneic products (umbilical): theoretical immune-response risk, addressed in trial design and consent
• Opportunity cost of delaying evidence-based surgery. Choosing a series of biologic injections in a patient whose imaging and exam already support cartilage repair, alignment correction, or replacement may delay better treatment. Biologics are not always neutral — sometimes they are a form of delay
• Financial cost. For HSS trials, costs are typically covered by sponsor. For BMAC in the OR, generally not covered by insurance for orthopedic indications and out-of-pocket. For cash-pay clinic offerings outside this practice, $5,000–$15,000 per knee with no proven benefit

Evidence-Based Care First

Patients should not pursue any stem cell pathway — BMAC in the OR or trial enrollment — without first giving evidence-based options a fair trial. This is medically correct and almost always more useful than any biologic injection:

• Structured physical therapy — quadriceps and hip-stabilizer strengthening, range-of-motion preservation, gait training, proprioception. The most under-executed step in arthritis care
• Weight optimization — each pound of body weight loads the knee 4–6 times over with each step. Meaningful weight loss is one of the highest-leverage interventions in OA care
• NSAIDs and topical agents — for short-course inflammatory control and flare management
• Activity modification — substitute lower-impact activities while symptoms are flared
• Bracing — offloader brace for unicompartmental disease with appropriate alignment correction
• Imaging — standing weight-bearing x-rays, long-leg alignment films when alignment is in question, MRI when meniscus or focal cartilage detail is needed
• Hyaluronic acid — FDA-approved for symptomatic knee OA, generally covered by insurance, with response in roughly half of treated patients
• Cortisone — selectively for acute flares or as a bridge in end-stage disease
• Alignment correction — osteotomy (HTO, DFO) for isolated compartment OA with malalignment
• Cartilage repair for focal defects — MACI, OATS or osteochondral allograft
• The MISHA implantable shock absorber — for medial-compartment OA in selected joint-preservation candidates
• Partial or total knee replacement — when joint-preserving options have been exhausted or are not appropriate

None of these has been shown to be replaceable by a stem cell injection. BMAC and the trial pathways are appropriate to discuss after foundational care has been given a fair trial — not as a shortcut around it.

FDA Status — The Honest Picture

The single most important fact for any patient evaluating a stem cell offering for the knee:

The regulatory categories in this space:

Category	Regulatory framework	What this means
Autologous BMAC, Lipogems, PRP (same-day, minimal manipulation)	HCT/P 361 minimal-manipulation framework; processing devices are FDA-cleared	Permitted same-day, autologous use; not FDA-approved as a drug for any specific orthopedic indication. This is the framework Dr. Strickland uses for in-BMAC in the OR.
Allogeneic amniotic / umbilical products in IRB-approved trials (HSS ASA, anticipated umbilical trial)	FDA-overseen clinical trial protocol; IRB approval	Investigational; not a marketed product outside the trial
Allogeneic amniotic / umbilical products marketed by cash-pay clinics	Generally outside FDA-cleared frameworks; multiple FDA enforcement actions on file	Often in regulatory gray area or in violation; clinical claims usually unsupported
“Stem cell IV infusion” for orthopedic disease	No coherent regulatory pathway; not supported by orthopedic evidence	Predatory marketing

The 2017–2020 FDA crackdown on US Stem Cell Inc. (a Florida-based clinic operator) resulted in a federal injunction. The FDA’s public warning-letter database lists multiple operators in this space who have received enforcement actions for marketing unapproved stem cell products. Patients can search the FDA warning-letter database directly. The professional societies most relevant to orthopedic surgery — AAOS (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons), AOSSM (American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine), and ICRS (International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society) — have issued cautionary statements about overstated claims for cell-based products in arthritis care.

What “Stem Cell Therapy” Actually Is

In an orthopedic setting, “stem cell therapy” is a marketing umbrella for several biologically distinct injectable preparations that contain a mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) fraction — sometimes loosely called “stem cells.” These are not embryonic stem cells. They are adult cells that live in bone marrow, fat tissue, and certain donated tissues, with multi-lineage differentiation potential and immune-modulatory activity. The cell biology is real. The clinical claim that injecting these cells into an adult arthritic knee “regenerates” cartilage is not supported by the evidence.

Several distinctions matter when reading any clinical claim:

• Autologous (from you) vs allogeneic (from a donor): Autologous = your own bone marrow (BMAC) or fat (Lipogems, trial). Allogeneic = donor-derived (amniotic membrane / amniotic fluid in ASA; umbilical cord tissue in upcoming trials). Regulatory complexity increases substantially with allogeneic products
• MSC (mesenchymal stromal cell) vs HSC (hematopoietic stem cell): Orthopedic biology is interested in MSCs (multi-lineage stromal cells with immune-modulatory activity), not the HSCs used in hematology / oncology stem cell transplant. Marketing that conflates the two is misleading
• Bone marrow vs adipose vs umbilical vs amniotic: Different source tissues, different cell concentrations, different processing requirements, different evidence bases. They are not interchangeable
• Expanded vs minimally manipulated: “Expanded” cells are grown in a lab over weeks; “minimally manipulated” cells are processed at the bedside the same day. The FDA treats these very differently — expanded products require IND / BLA approval; minimally manipulated autologous tissue often falls under the HCT/P 361 framework
• Live cells vs tissue extract: Many shelf-stable amniotic and umbilical products contain few if any viable cells after the processing required to make them shelf-stable. The marketing term “live cell” is often used in ways that are not biologically accurate

The honest biological summary: when concentrated and injected into an arthritic or injured joint, mesenchymal stromal cells appear to influence the joint environment over weeks to months — modulating inflammation, supporting existing cartilage cells, and possibly slowing further degeneration. They do not regrow hyaline cartilage in adult arthritic knees in any clinically meaningful way; that claim is marketing, not evidence. The realistic ceiling for any current cell-based product is symptom modification in selected patients — and for most marketed cash-pay products, even that ceiling is not reliably achieved.

What the Evidence Actually Says

The honest summary of the orthopedic stem cell evidence base, as of 2026:

• Some signal in mild OA. A subset of patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis report meaningful symptom relief from autologous cell-based injections (BMAC, autologous adipose). The magnitude of benefit in responders is modest; non-response is common; and this is symptom modification, not structural repair
• No evidence of cartilage regeneration. No injectable biologic — autologous BMAC, Lipogems, allogeneic amniotic, allogeneic umbilical, exosome, or any cash-pay product — has been shown to regrow functional hyaline cartilage in adult arthritic knees in any clinically meaningful way
• Response variability is huge. Across published trials, the spread between responders and non-responders is wide, and the predictors of who will respond are not well established. Honest pre-injection counseling has to include the possibility of no clinical benefit
• Unpublished outcomes dominate the cash-pay market. The orthopedic stem cell industry generates billions of dollars in cash-pay revenue per year in the US. The volume of peer-reviewed published outcomes from cash-pay clinics is a tiny fraction of the volume of injections delivered. That asymmetry is information
• Professional societies urge caution. AAOS, AOSSM, and ICRS have issued statements urging caution about overstated cell-based product claims, particularly in arthritis care. None of these societies endorses any cash-pay stem cell product as standard of care for knee arthritis
• The evidence-based options for cartilage damage have decades of follow-up. MACI (autologous chondrocyte implantation), OATS, osteochondral allograft, microfracture, alignment correction with osteotomy, the MISHA implantable shock absorber, and partial / total knee replacement all have substantial peer-reviewed long-term outcome data. They are not exciting in the way a marketing campaign for “stem cell regeneration” can be exciting, but they are evidence-based

Academic Trials vs Cash-Pay Clinics

The most important distinction in this entire space is not autologous-vs-allogeneic, BMAC-vs-Lipogems, or even cells-vs-exosomes. It is trial-based research vs unregulated commercial offering. The same source tissue can be evaluated rigorously inside an FDA-overseen academic trial and marketed irresponsibly outside one.

	Academic trial (HSS, FDA-overseen)	Cash-pay “stem cell clinic”
Setting	Credentialed academic medical center, IRB approval, FDA-registered protocol, ClinicalTrials.gov listing	Standalone clinic, often non-physician-led or led by a physician outside their specialty; sometimes outside the US
Inclusion / outcomes	Standardized inclusion / exclusion criteria; blinded outcome assessment; peer-reviewed reporting whether positive or negative	“Anyone who can pay”; no controls; testimonial “before / after” outcomes; no published peer-reviewed data
Product source	Carefully characterized; cells assessed for viability and potency by the trial sponsor	Often shelf-stable allogeneic products with few viable cells after processing; lot-to-lot variability not disclosed
Claims made	Hypothesis-driven; investigational; outcomes measured against placebo or active comparator	“Regenerate cartilage,” “reverse arthritis,” “avoid surgery” — not supported by evidence
Cost	Trial-covered or modest, with academic oversight; patient does not pay thousands to participate	$5,000–$15,000 per knee “package” common; sometimes IV add-on infusions; no proven benefit
Consent	Full informed consent describing investigational status, possibility of no benefit, unknown long-term effects	Consent forms (when present) may not describe the regulatory status or the absence of evidence
FDA position	Pre-cleared trial protocol with formal investigational status	FDA has issued enforcement actions against multiple operators in this space
Long-term follow-up	Built into the protocol	Often nonexistent — patients are not tracked after the injection

How to Spot a Predatory Stem Cell Clinic

The cash-pay stem cell clinic market for knee arthritis is dominated by clinics making claims unsupported by evidence. The patterns are consistent enough to be worth recognizing. Specific red flags:

• Claims an “FDA-approved stem cell knee treatment.” The FDA has not approved any stem cell therapy as a drug for the orthopedic knee. This claim is misrepresentation
• Promises cartilage regeneration or arthritis “reversal” / “cure.” No injectable biologic has been shown to do this in adult arthritic knees
• Non-physician-led, or led by a physician outside their specialty. Many stem cell clinics are run by chiropractors, naturopaths, or physicians whose primary specialty is not orthopedic surgery or sports medicine. Stem cell offerings for knee arthritis from a non-orthopedic-surgeon are a structural red flag
• IV stem cell infusion for joint disease. There is no coherent biological or evidence basis for treating a focal joint problem with an IV infusion. This is a marketing construct
• High-pressure sales of injection “packages” — particularly “buy 3 get 1 free” or prepaid bundles before any imaging review
• Cash-pay only. Legitimate orthopedic care interacts with insurance for documented diagnostic and therapeutic services. A clinic that can only process cash for a non-emergency injection is a structural red flag
• No consent forms describing research / investigational status. Real trials require formal consent; real medical-grade autologous procedures (BMAC) describe the framework. Clinics that hand-wave this are doing so deliberately
• Exotic locations / medical tourism. Mexico, Caribbean, Eastern European clinics operating in jurisdictions with looser regulation. Outcomes are not better; downstream complications are harder to manage; recourse if anything goes wrong is essentially nonexistent
• No published outcomes. A clinic injecting hundreds or thousands of patients with a product that supposedly “regenerates cartilage” should be able to point to peer-reviewed published outcomes. Most cannot
• Marketing language conflates “stem cell” with “regenerative.” “Regenerative” is a marketing umbrella; “stem cell” is a specific cell type. Clinics that use them interchangeably are usually being deliberately vague about what is in the syringe
• The word “cure” — appears in advertising for arthritis. Arthritis is structural cartilage loss in adult tissue with limited intrinsic capacity for repair. There is no cure in 2026

Common Patient Concerns

The three concerns we hear most often, with honest answers:

Insurance and Cost

The cost picture differs sharply between Dr. Strickland's offerings and cash-pay clinic offerings elsewhere:

• BMAC as surgical adjunct — usually billed as part of the underlying surgical procedure (e.g., cartilage repair, meniscus repair) where applicable; insurance handling depends on the primary procedure code
• BMAC as a surgical adjunct — billed as part of the underlying surgical procedure; covered the same way as the indicated surgery
• HSS clinical trials (anticipated umbilical) — trial costs are typically covered by the sponsor; you do not pay thousands of dollars to enroll. Insurance is generally not billed for the investigational product itself. The trade-off is strict eligibility criteria and protocol-required follow-up
• Cash-pay “stem cell” clinics (elsewhere, not in Dr. Strickland's practice) — $5,000–$15,000 per knee “package” common in the US market, with no proven clinical benefit; not covered by insurance because the products are not FDA-approved for orthopedic use; opportunity cost is the evidence-based care that money could have funded
• Amniotic / umbilical “stem cell” products outside trials — not FDA-approved for orthopedic use, not covered, and not offered in this practice

For benefits questions on covered services (PT, MRI, evidence-based surgical procedures, hyaluronic acid where indicated, cortisone), call the office at (646) 960-7227 or contact us.

When to Seek a Sub-Specialty Second Opinion

A sub-specialty second opinion with a board-certified orthopedic surgeon is particularly worth seeking when:

• A clinic is selling stem cells for arthritis — this is the single most important moment to get a second opinion. Most of these clinics are predatory
• You have been told an injection will let you avoid knee replacement — this claim warrants a second look
• You are being asked to prepay an injection package before any imaging review or comprehensive evaluation
• A non-physician-led clinic, or a non-orthopedic-surgeon, is recommending stem cells for your knee
• You have a focal cartilage defect on MRI and have been offered a biologic injection — cartilage repair is the evidence-based option for focal defects
• You have advanced arthritis or significant malalignment and have been told an injection will replace surgery
• You want an honest answer about what the evidence does and does not say for your specific knee, your specific imaging, and your specific goals
• You are interested in HSS clinical trial enrollment and want to ask whether any current trial is appropriate for your condition

Most patients are not eligible for any current HSS trial — trial criteria are narrow by design. But asking is appropriate, and a sub-specialty second opinion is appropriate any time a cash-pay clinic is selling cartilage regeneration or arthritis cure.

Access & HSS Locations

Dr. Strickland sees patients at two offices, both of which work with patients traveling in from outside the immediate area:

• New York City (primary): Hospital for Special Surgery, East River Professional Building, 523 East 72nd Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10021. Upper East Side, accessible from Manhattan, the outer boroughs, Long Island, Westchester, and northern New Jersey via the Queensboro and Triboro bridges and the FDR Drive. Phone: (646) 960-7227.
• Stamford, CT (satellite): Stamford Chelsea Piers, 1 Blachley Road, Stamford, CT 06902 — convenient for patients in Fairfield County, lower Connecticut, and Westchester.

Many out-of-state patients travel to HSS specifically for an honest read on stem cell options — either to discuss whether BMAC in the OR or HSS clinical-trial enrollment is appropriate for their knee, or for a second opinion on a stem cell offer made by another clinic. The most common reason for the second-opinion visit: a cash-pay clinic has promised cartilage regeneration or arthritis cure, and the patient wants an honest read before paying.

Source Grounding — What Informs This Page

The clinical positions on this page are grounded in Dr. Strickland’s published patient education on stem cells, exosomes, and cartilage repair; her HSS clinical-trial participation; the broader HSS sub-specialty consensus on the role of orthobiologic and cell-based products in knee care; and the current FDA and professional-society regulatory framing:

Topic	Grounding source on this site	What it informs
Stem cells, exosomes, and cartilage repair	Stem cells, exosomes & cartilage repair	Dr. Strickland’s patient-facing summary of BMAC use, past ASA trials, anticipated CartiSTEM umbilical FDA trial, exosome research, and the “we don’t have the answer yet” honest framing
Amniotic suspension allograft (ASA) for knee OA	HSS research study on ASA injections for knee OA	Investigational status of cryopreserved amniotic-fluid cell + micronized amniotic membrane injectable, evaluated in HSS IRB-approved trials — distinct from cash-pay “amniotic stem cell” marketing
HSS Journal webinar on stem cells & scaffolds	HSS Journal webinar on stem cells & scaffolds	Academic context for stem-cell-based and scaffold-based cartilage repair research
“Dancing molecules” cartilage research	Northwestern dancing-molecules research	Animal-model regenerative work; promising and research-stage, not a current clinical option
Sea coral / CartiHEAL scaffold	Sea coral helps knee osteoarthritis (CBS News)	Emerging cartilage scaffold technology — not a biologic injection, complementary to the stem-cell discussion
Stanford research on knee arthritis treatment	Stanford research — knee arthritis treatment	Academic research context for emerging arthritis treatments
Is osteoarthritis treatable / reversible?	Study: is osteoarthritis treatable and reversible?	Honest framing of the “reverse arthritis” marketing claim against the evidence
PRP and the broader biologic injection context	PRP & regenerative medicine	Adjunctive biologic options including PRP, hyaluronic acid, BMAC, Lipogems, and cortisone — companion page to this one
Surgeon credentials, research, and experience	About Dr. Sabrina Strickland · Research and publications	HSS sub-specialty care, board certification, and the basis for “Medically reviewed by”

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Specialty Care

For PRP, hyaluronic acid, BMAC and Lipogems in adjunctive context, see PRP & regenerative medicine. For evidence-based cartilage repair options, see MACI cartilage repair and cartilage transplantation (OATS & allograft). For alignment correction in isolated compartment OA, see joint preservation & osteotomy. For the implantable shock absorber for medial compartment OA, see the MISHA Knee System. For the full knee arthritis treatment ladder, see knee arthritis. For Dr. Strickland’s patient-facing commentary on the science, see stem cells, exosomes & cartilage repair.