Icariin Promotes the Osteogenesis of Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells through Regulating Sclerostin and Activating the Wnt/ß-Catenin Signaling Pathway.

Osteoporosis (OP) is a metabolic disease characterized by decreased bone mass and increased risk of fragility fractures, which significantly reduces the quality of life. Stem cell-based therapies, especially using bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs), are a promising strategy for treating OP. Nevertheless, the survival and differentiation rates of the transplanted BMSCs are low, which limits their therapeutic efficiency. Icariin (ICA) is a traditional Chinese medicine formulation that is prescribed for tonifying the kidneys. It also promotes the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs, although the specific mechanism remains unclear. Based on our previous research, we hypothesized that ICA promotes bone formation via the sclerostin/Wnt/ß-catenin signaling pathway. We isolated rat BMSCs and transfected them with sclerostin gene (SOST) overexpressing or knockdown constructs and assessed osteogenic induction in the presence or absence of ICA. Sclerostin significantly inhibited BMSC proliferation and osteogenic differentiation, whereas the presence of ICA not only increased the number of viable BMSCs but also enhanced ALP activity and formation of calcium nodules during osteogenic induction. In addition, the osteogenic genes including Runx2, ß-catenin, and c-myc as well as antioxidant factors (Prdx1, Cata, and Nqo1) were downregulated by sclerostin and restored by ICA treatment. Mechanistically, ICA exerted these effects by activating the Wnt/ß-catenin pathway. In conclusion, ICA can promote the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs in situ and therefore may enhance the therapeutic efficiency of BMSC transplantation in OP.

Comparison of the effectiveness and outcome of microendoscopic and open discectomy in patients suffering from lumbar disc herniation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study is to compare the outcomes and effectiveness of MED vs OLD for lumbar disc herniation. OBJECTIVES: To identify the functional outcomes in terms of ODI score, VAS score complications in terms of intraoperative blood loss, use of general anesthesia, and morbidity in terms of total hospital stay between MED and OLD. METHODS: In our randomized prospective study we analyzed 60 patients with clinical signs and symptoms with 2 weeks of failed conservative treatment plus MRI or CT scan findings of lumbar disc herniation who underwent MED and OLD. The study was undertaken from November 2017 to January 2019 at Guangzhou Medical University of Second Affiliated Hospital, department of orthopedic surgery in spinal Unit, Guangzhou, China. Patients were divided into 2 groups i.e. who underwent MED group and the OLD group then we compared the preoperative and postoperative ODI and VAS score, duration of total hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, and operation time. RESULTS: We evaluated 60 patients. Among them, 30 underwent MED (15 female and 15 male) and 30 underwent OLD 14 male 16 female. Surgical and anesthesia time was significantly shorter, blood loss and hospital stay were significantly reduced in patients having MED than OLD (<0.005). The improvement in the ODI in both groups was clinically significant and statistically (P < .005) at postoperative 1st day (with greater improvement in the MED group), at 6 weeks (P > .005), month 6 (>0.005) statistically no significant. The clinical improvement was similar in both groups. VAS and ODI scores improved significantly postoperatively in both groups. However, the MED group was superior to the OLD group with less time in bed, shorter operation time, less blood loss which is clinically and statistically significant (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The standard surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation has been open discectomy but there has been a trend towards minimally invasive procedures. MED for lumbar spine disc herniation is a well-known but developing field, which is increasingly spreading in the last few years. The success rate of MED is about approximately 90%. Both methods are equally effective in relieving radicular pain. MED was superior in terms of total hospital stay, morbidity, and earlier return to work and anesthetic exposure, blood loss, intra-op time comparing to OLD. MED is a safe and effective alternative to conventional OLD for patients with lumbar disc herniation.