# What to know about cartilage and soreness *Cartilage and Soreness | Joint Regeneration Queen Creek* > Joint regeneration Queen Creek answers about cartilage, soreness relief, and what treatment research can tell you. Can cartilage regenerate after years of wear? Common office treatments haven’t been shown to rebuild worn cartilage in a joint. Some people do report less soreness or easier movement after care. Feeling better isn’t proof that cartilage grew back. Cartilage regeneration means new joint covering has formed where the old layer wore away. That’s different from easing pain, walking farther, or sleeping better. An X-ray can show joint wear, but it can’t tell your doctor exactly how sore you feel. Both parts deserve attention. ## What to ask when cartilage regeneration comes up What result is the treatment meant to provide? Ask whether the aim is less soreness, easier movement, or actual growth of cartilage. Those results aren’t the same, even when they appear in one conversation. A clear answer will name one. Cartilage may wear with age, an old injury, and years of repeated use. Wear on an X-ray doesn’t always match the soreness a person feels. Your current exam and daily limits matter too. Treatment shouldn’t be chosen from an old image alone. If someone says cartilage grew, ask what image showed it and when the image was taken. For a research claim, ask whether it covered your joint and the same kind of wear. Age and other health problems can matter as well. You’ll then know whether the finding has much to say about you. ## What to choose as your sign of improvement How will you know whether care helped? Before treatment, choose one task you want to improve, such as walking, sleeping, or using stairs, and note how far or how long you can do it now. That gives you something real to compare later. When someone says regenerative medicine, they may mean PRP prepared from blood or care that uses fat or marrow. Ask which material will be used, the way it will be prepared, and whether the expected result is comfort, easier movement, or a change seen on an image. You shouldn’t have to guess. Please choose an improvement that would justify the time and cost for you. It might be a longer walk, an easier night, or less trouble getting dressed. At a later appointment, compare that same task with where you began. The answer will be clearer than a general soreness score. ## Sources 1. The RESTORE trial - a participant-, injector- and assessor-blinded RCT of 288 adults aged 50+ with symptomatic medial knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence 2-3) - compared three weekly intra-articular PRP injections against saline placebo, with co-primary endpoints of 12-month knee pain and medial tibial cartilage volume on MRI. PRP did not beat placebo on either. It is the single best-designed test of the specific claim that PRP changes joint structure, and it was negative. Bennell KL, et al. — [Effect of Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma vs Placebo Injection on Pain and Medial Tibial Cartilage Volume in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: The RESTORE Randomized Clinical Trial.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34812863/). *JAMA*, 2021. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.19415. 2. A four-arm, multicentre, single-blind phase 2/3 randomized trial of 480 knee OA patients (KL II-IV) compared autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate, autologous adipose stromal vascular fraction and allogeneic umbilical-cord-tissue mesenchymal stromal cells against a corticosteroid injection control. At 12 months NONE of the three orthobiologic injections was superior to another, or to the corticosteroid control, and none of the four groups showed a significant change in MRI osteoarthritis score from baseline. No procedure-related serious adverse events occurred. Mautner K, et al. — [Cell-based versus corticosteroid injections for knee pain in osteoarthritis: a randomized phase 3 trial.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37919438/). *Nature medicine*, 2023. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02632-w. 3. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 randomized trials of intra-articular mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies in knee OA found significant improvements in several pain and function measures (delta-VAS MD -1.67; KOOS pain MD 15.37) but NO significant difference in WOMAC, KOOS quality of life or the Lequesne index, and MRI-based WORMS scores were non-significant - indicating no consistent structural benefit. Its own conclusion: these therapies serve a primarily SYMPTOM-modifying rather than STRUCTURE-modifying role, with higher frequencies of local reactions to weigh against the symptomatic benefit. Awad G, et al. — [Efficacy and safety of intra-articular mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies in knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41863718/). *Clinical rheumatology*, 2026. DOI: 10.1007/s10067-026-08042-w. 4. A GRADE-rated systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials (807 participants) found that MSC therapy for chronic knee OA pain PROBABLY RESULTS IN LITTLE TO NO DIFFERENCE in pain relief at 3-6 months (WMD -0.74 cm on a 10 cm VAS against a minimally important difference of 1.5 cm) or physical functioning (WMD 2.23 on the SF-36 100-point subscale against a 10-point MID), both moderate certainty; at 12 months pain was again probably little-to-no-different (WMD -0.73 cm). The measured effect is real but sits BELOW the threshold at which a patient would notice it. Sadeghirad B, et al. — [Mesenchymal stem cells for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38777213/). *Osteoarthritis and cartilage*, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2024.04.021. 5. A meta-analysis of 14 placebo cohorts from 13 Level-1 knee OA injection trials (1,076 patients, KL 1-4) measured what the SALINE arms did. Intra-articular normal saline produced a statistically significant VAS pain improvement at 3 months (MD 12.10) and a larger one at 6 months (MD 16.62), reaching clinically meaningful thresholds. Any uncontrolled report of 'my injection worked' has to clear this bar before it means anything about the injectate. Saltzman BM, et al. — [The Therapeutic Effect of Intra-articular Normal Saline Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-analysis of Evidence Level 1 Studies.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28027657/). *The American journal of sports medicine*, 2017. DOI: 10.1177/0363546516680607. 6. MACI (autologous cultured chondrocytes on a porcine collagen membrane, Vericel; STN BL 125603) IS an FDA-LICENSED cell therapy - and its approved indication is narrow and specific: repair of symptomatic, single or multiple FULL-THICKNESS cartilage defects OF THE KNEE, with or without bone involvement, in adults. It is not approved for osteoarthritis. The existence of one licensed cartilage cell therapy for focal defects is the sharpest available way to show what a licensed 'regeneration' product actually looks like, and how far it is from an injection for a worn joint. US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research — [MACI (autologous cultured chondrocytes on porcine collagen membrane)](https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/maci-autologous-cultured-chondrocytes-porcine-collagen-membrane). *FDA*, 2024. 7. A dual systematic review compared the RCT evidence on injectable orthobiologics for knee OA with how news media describe it. Of 14 qualifying RCTs, 8 showed significant pain improvement and 10 function improvement, with frequent heterogeneity and risk of bias. Of 124 news articles: 79.0% highlighted benefits, only 29.8% mentioned drawbacks, 37.1% used the term 'stem cell' without specifying the product, 35.5% mentioned commercial entities with no disclosure, and 66.1% were favourable in tone. The authors conclude this disconnect encourages unrealistic expectations. Zhang EJX, et al. — [Disparities in Evidence and Media Portrayal of Injectable Orthobiologics for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials and News Media.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42221207/). *Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine*, 2026. DOI: 10.1177/23259671261443876. 8. FDA states plainly that no stem cell, exosome, stromal vascular fraction, umbilical cord blood, Wharton's jelly or amniotic-fluid product has been approved for the treatment of ANY orthopedic condition - it names osteoarthritis, tendonitis, disc disease, tennis elbow, back pain, hip pain, knee pain, neck pain and shoulder pain individually. The only FDA-approved stem cell products in the United States are cord-blood-derived blood-forming stem cells for disorders of the hematopoietic system, and there are currently no FDA-approved exosome products. US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research — [Consumer Alert on Regenerative Medicine Products Including Stem Cells and Exosomes](https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/consumers-biologics/consumer-alert-regenerative-medicine-products-including-stem-cells-and-exosomes). *FDA*, 2020. ## What to bring to the conversation You’re welcome to bring short notes about when the soreness began and which movements bother the joint. Please ask about the exam, each treatment choice, the total cost, and later visits. You can take the answers home before deciding. Book a free consultation: --- A welcome place for clear joint answers. Clear Queen Creek help with joint soreness, home care, office treatment choices, and the nearest clinic. Warm, plain help for Queen Creek residents with joint soreness and treatment questions. This site is operated by the owners of the QC Kinetix Phoenix-area clinics, including the Chandler location recommended here, and those owners benefit when a reader books a consultation. © 2026 Queen Creek Joint Field Notes. A clinician who examines you should direct personal medical decisions; this material is general health education only.