Best Stem Cell Therapy clinics for Spinal Cord Injuries

We don’t let any clinic just sign up or pay to be listed.

We speak to every clinic directly and review their medical team, the treatments they offer, how their stem cells are sourced and how they follow up with patients after treatment.

We also review licensing documents to confirm they meet the legal and medical standards of the country they operate in. For example, whether cells are processed in a GMP-certified facility or if they provide documentation on stem cell quality.

Clinics must also agree to let us collect and publish independent patient reviews. Both positive and negative.

Top Stem Cell Therapy Clinics in Japan & South Korea for Spinal Cord Inuries

We’re working with a number of approved clinics in Japan & South Korea for Spinal Cord Injuries. We’re in the process of designing profile pages, but fill out our form to learn more about them.

Top Stem Cell Therapy Clinics in Dubai for Spinal Cord Injuries

Excellency Center is a specialized clinic focused on orthopaedic and sports medicine, helping people recover from pain, injuries, and movement issues that affect their everyday life.  They offer both autologous stem cells (from your own body) and allogenic stem cells (donor-based), depending on what’s best for your condition. All treatments come with full certifications of quality and safety.

Top Stem Cell Therapy Clinics in the UK for Spinal Cord Injuries

Top Stem Cell Therapy Clinics in Colombia for Spinal Cord Injuries

Umbilical Cord Derived Stem Cells Higher Dosage Treatments Certified Lab

Alevy specializes in stem cell and exosome therapy, using umbilical cord-derived MSCs to treat a wide variety of conditions, from Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis to Osteoarthritis & Orthopaedic injuries. Their medical team brings over 15 years of experience in pain management, tissue regeneration, and immune system modulation. With three world-class clinics in Medellín, Bogotá, and Pereira, you have options on where you want treatment!

View Full Profile

Umbilical Cord Derived Stem Cells Higher Dosage Treatments Certified Lab

Kyron Stem Cells is a Stem Cell Therapy clinic that focuses on a variety of treatments, including joint pain, chronic fatigue, autoimmune issues, and overall wellness. The clinic is led by Dr. Carlos Rojas, who has been working with stem cells since 1991 and has over a decade of experience in functional and hormone-based medicine. He is known for creating treatment plans that are genuinely personalized, based on each patient’s biology and lab results.

View Full Profile

Current Trials looking at Stem Cells treating Spinal Cord Injuries

We’ve highlighted a few current & upcoming trials looking at Stem Cell Therapy for spinal cord injuries below and simplified them all for you!

XellSmart’s iPSC Stem Cell Therapy Trial: USA & China

A company called XellSmart Biopharmaceutical has just gotten official approval from both the U.S. FDA and China’s NMPA (that’s China’s version of the FDA) to start a Phase I clinical trial for a brand-new stem cell treatment aimed at spinal cord injury (SCI) 

The therapy is made using iPSCs, or induced pluripotent stem cells. What makes this therapy stand out is that it’s:

• Allogeneic — meaning it’s donor-based, not made from the patient’s own cells.
  
• Off-the-shelf — meaning it’s pre-made and ready to use, no wait time or customization needed.
  
• Subtype-specific — which means the stem cells are tailored to become exactly the kind of nerve cells that get damaged in spinal cord injuries.

This trial will be run by the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University. A top center for spinal cord injury treatment in China. It’s the first trial anywhere in the world using this specific type of cell therapy for spinal cord injury.

What does this mean?

This is a major milestone in the world of stem cell therapy. Especially for spinal cord injuries, where treatment options have barely changed in decades.

• Right now, most patients with spinal cord injuries are left with lifelong paralysis or major disability. There are no treatments that actually regenerate the damaged nerves, only physical therapy and symptom management.
  
• XellSmart’s new approach is trying to regrow the right type of nerve cells, potentially restoring function where nothing else has worked before.
  
• The fact that this treatment was approved by both the U.S. and Chinese regulators means the science is strong, the safety data looks good, and this isn’t just hype.It’s a serious, global effort.
  
• Because the therapy is off-the-shelf, it could be produced in large batches and made more accessible. Without needing to create personalized cells for every patient.
  

In short: this trial could open the door to the first real regenerative therapy for spinal cord injuries. If it works, it won’t just improve lives, it could transform what recovery even means for millions of people around the world. You can read their full press release here.

OPC1 Stem Cell Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury: Lineage Cell Therapeutics (USA)

(To read more, the press release is here)

Who’s Running This Study?

This clinical trial is being conducted by Lineage Cell Therapeutics, a biotech company specializing in cell-based therapies for neurodegenerative conditions and injuries. They are testing OPC1, a treatment derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), designed to repair spinal cord injuries. It was launched in February 2025.

Who’s Taking Part?

• The study includes patients with cervical spinal cord injuries who have lost significant motor function.
• Participants will receive different doses of OPC1 cells to evaluate their impact on nerve repair and mobility improvements.

How Does It Work?

• OPC1 is made from special nerve-supporting cells (oligodendrocyte progenitor cells) that come from embryonic stem cells. These cells help repair damage by restoring myelin, the protective layer around nerves.
• The treatment is injected directly into the spinal cord at the injury site, where it aims to protect and regenerate nerve connections.
• Higher doses (10-20 million cells) in earlier trials showed better recovery results, meaning the number of cells used could be a key factor in how well it works.

What’s Interesting About This Study?

• OPC1 is one of the few treatments targeting actual nerve repair rather than just reducing inflammation.
• The study aims to confirm whether higher doses improve motor function and long-term recovery.
• Previous trials have demonstrated a strong safety profile, with no serious adverse effects related to OPC1 reported so far.

Next Steps

• The trial will assess safety, efficacy, and optimal dosing levels over an extended period.
• If successful, OPC1 could become a breakthrough treatment for spinal cord injury patients, offering real nerve regeneration and improved mobility.

Stem Cell Injection for Chronic Lower Back Pain: BRTX-100 Clinical Trial Phase II, USA

You can read more about the study on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04042844 and the preliminary results are on their website.

This U.S.-based study is testing whether a single injection of stem cells into a damaged spinal disc can safely reduce pain and improve daily function in people with chronic lumbar disc disease (cLDD), a leading cause of lower back pain.

The therapy, called BRTX-100, uses stem cells from the patient’s own bone marrow (autologous) and is developed by BioRestorative Therapies. The goal is to offer a non-surgical treatment for people who haven’t improved with physical therapy, medication, or injections.

The study is a Phase 2 double-blind trial, meaning neither patients nor doctors know who receives real stem cells vs. placebo (saline).

Study Details

• Participants: 99 planned
• Current evaluated: 36
• Condition: Chronic lower back pain (lasting ≥6 months) caused by disc degeneration
• Age range: 18–60 years
• Follow-up: 2 years (clinic visits at Week 2, 12, 26, 52, and 104)

Procedure

• Delivery method:
  • Each patient receives a single injection of 40 million cells directly into the damaged disc.
  • Control patients undergo the same procedure but receive a saline (placebo) injection instead.
  • This is a randomized, double-blind trial, meaning neither the patients nor doctors know who gets the real treatment.

Cell Used

•  Type: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs)
• Source: Patient’s own bone marrow (autologous BMAC)
• Culture: The cells were cultured in low-oxygen (hypoxic) conditions to better match the environment inside spinal discs, which helps improve their survival and activity after injection. This approach is not standard. Most stem cell therapies grow cells in normal oxygen levels, making BioRestorative’s method a unique and potentially more effective strategy
• Preparation: The cells were mixed with the patient’s own platelet lysate, which is a part of their blood rich in natural healing proteins. This is unusual, most treatments use additives from donors or plain saline, so using the patient’s own blood makes it more personalized and may reduce the risk of side effects
• Dose: One injection of 40 million cells

Key Results (So Far)

Most patients felt much better after treatment. By 1 year, over 70% had less pain and could move better and 8 out of 10 improved in both areas.

Success in this study was measured by how much pain went down and how much physical function improved. Not by whether the discs themselves were regenerated on scans.

Next Scans

1. Complete enrollment of all 99 patients
2. Collect full 52-week data for all subjects (needed for FDA review)
3. Continue 2-year follow-up to confirm long-term safety and durability
4. Submit results to the FDA for potential approval (BLA)
5. Publish peer-reviewed data (no publication yet — only ISSCR conference presentation)
6. Explore additional indications, such as cervical disc disease, already approved for testing

Previous Research looking at Stem Cell Treating Spinal Cord Injuries

Here’s we’ve broken down Phase 1,2 and phase 3 trials so you can see stages trials are what, types of stem cells being explored and how researchers are saying stem cells actually work!

Phase 2 Trials looking at Stem Cells treating SCI

Stemirac IV MSC Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury: Sapporo Medical University, Japan

You can read more about the study here.

This clinical study set out to test whether giving autologous mesenchymal stem cells through an intravenous (IV) infusion could be safe and possibly help improve nerve function and daily mobility in people with spinal cord injuries.

The therapy used is called Stemirac®, a proprietary treatment developed in Japan. It’s made from each patient’s own bone marrow stem cells, which are then expanded using their own blood serum (instead of animal products like fetal bovine serum). This method is thought to make the cells more stable and less likely to cause immune problems. Stemirac was granted conditional, time-limited approval in Japan in 2018 for use in acute spinal cord injury.

This was a Phase 2 clinical trial, meaning the goal was to study safety, feasibility, and early effectiveness. The research team included physicians from multiple departments at Sapporo Medical University, and collaborators from Yale University in the U.S.

Study Details

• Participants:
  13 patients with cervical spinal cord injuries (neck-level), classified as ASIA A, B, or C.
• Age range:
  21 to 66 years old (average ~47)
• Time since injury before treatment:
  43–54 days (subacute stage)
• Follow-up:
  6 months minimum, some patients tracked over 1+ year

Procedure

• Delivery Method
  • Each patient received a single IV infusion of their own expanded stem cells
  • No surgery was needed, the cells were delivered through a standard IV drip
  • Infusions were given under Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) conditions

Cell Type & Source

• Type: Autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs)
• Source: Patient’s own bone marrow
• Culture method: Expanded in autologous human serum (proprietary to Stemirac)

This serum-based expansion method is unique. Most stem cell trials use animal-based ingredients or pooled human products. Stemirac’s use of self-serum is designed to:

• Avoid immune rejection
• Support more stable, less differentiated cells
• Maintain healthy gene expression

Dosage

• Each patient received between 84 million and 160 million cells
• Average: ~125 million cells
• Doses were personalized based on cell yield from bone marrow

Key Results

• Safety
  • No serious adverse events from infusion
  • Minor events before infusion (e.g. mild anemia from blood draw, pain at marrow site)
  • No tumors or harmful immune responses on follow-up
• Neurological Improvements
  • 12 out of 13 patients improved at least one ASIA level by 6 months
  • All 5 ASIA C patients improved to ASIA D within 1 day
  • Others regained bladder sensation, light touch, or muscle movement
  • Improvements in motor function and sensation were confirmed using standard tests (ISCSCI-92)

• Daily Function (SCIM-III Scores)
  • Patients improved in mobility, self-care, and bladder/bowel management
  • Some progressed from ventilator support to independent breathing
  • Several became able to use wheelchairs, walk with assistance, or use digital devices

How the Cells Worked
Researchers believe that the stem cells did not become new neurons, but instead:

• Released healing molecules (like brain-derived neurotrophic factor, or BDNF)
• Helped repair the blood-spinal cord barrier
• Reduced inflammation and swelling
• Encouraged nerve regrowth or reconnection (neuroplasticity)
  

What We Don’t Know

• This study was unblinded and had no control group
• Cannot rule out placebo effects or natural recovery
• Needs to be followed up with a larger, randomized trial to prove efficacy

Conclusion

This Phase 2 clinical trial shows that Stemirac is safe and may promote rapid neurological and functional recovery after spinal cord injury.

While it did not restore full mobility, many patients regained sensation, partial movement, and better daily functioning, often within days to weeks of infusion. The results are early, but promising.

They suggest Stemirac’s unique approach to cell preparation and delivery could offer a new avenue for treating SCI.

Phase 1 Trials looking at Stem Cells Treating SCI

Neural (NSI-566) Stem Cell Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury: UC San Diego, USA

You can read more about the study here.

This study set out to test whether injecting neural stem cells (NSI-566) into the spinal cord of people with chronic thoracic spinal cord injury (SCI) could be done safely. And whether it might help restore nerve activity, reduce pain, or improve movement. 

NSI-566 is a human neural stem cell line derived from fetal spinal cord tissue, manufactured by Neuralstem (now Seneca Biopharma).

It was a Phase 1 safety trial, meaning the main goal was to make sure the procedure didn’t cause harm.

The researchers were from the University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego), including departments of Neurosurgery, Regenerative Medicine, and Anesthesiology.

Study Details:

• Participants: 4 patients with long-standing, complete thoracic spinal cord injury (T2–T12), all classified as ASIA-A (no motor or sensory function below injury site).
  
• Age range: 27–37 years old.
  

• Follow-up: 60 months (5 years) post-treatment.

Procedure

• Delivery method:
  •  Each patient received six injections directly into the spinal cord, near the injury site, using a custom floating cannula during surgery. Imaging was used to guide injection placement precisely.
  •  Injections were made bilaterally (both sides of the spinal cord), targeting areas where tissue remained around the damage.
• Control group: None (open-label safety study)
  
• Blinding: None (doctors and patients knew stem cells were used)

Cell Used

• Type: Human spinal cord-derived neural stem cells (NSI-566)
  
• Source: Derived from a single fetal spinal cord (8 weeks gestational age, postmortem)
  
• Donor origin: Lower cervical/upper thoracic region

Dosage & Preparation

• Dosage: 6 injections per patient, each with 200,000 cells → 1.2 million total cells per patient
  
• Formulation: Live-cell suspension in a hibernation medium to keep cells stable
  
• Viability: Confirmed via inspection prior to injection
  
• Storage: Cells were cryopreserved and thawed the day before surgery

How Cells were prepared

• Culturing: Cells were grown and expanded as a single line under Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) conditions at a commercial facility.
• Passage: Exact number not reported
• Purity testing: Not detailed in this report, but cells underwent full FDA Investigational New Drug review before use.
• Sterility: Cell batches were confirmed free from contamination before injection.

Key Results

Safety

• No serious adverse events related to stem cells or the injection procedure.
• One patient (008) died from sepsis due to a pressure ulcer at 30 months. Not linked to the transplant or the cells.
• MRI showed no tumors, swelling, or infections.

Neurological Improvements

• 2 of 4 patients improved their motor and sensory scores (1–2 spinal levels better than before).
• Improvements began within 6 months and remained stable at 5 years.

Electrophysiology (EMG + BMCA)

• 3 of 4 patients showed new nerve signals in muscles below the injury:
  • Subject 001: New voluntary EMG activity at T11–T12 and toe movement
  • Subject 006: New muscle responses up to T12
  • Subject 010: EMG activity at T7 and signs of hamstring activation

Pain

• Subjects 001 and 006: Reported reduced pain
• Subject 010: Pain stayed stable
• Subject 008: Pain worsened (linked to ulcer, not treatment)

Functional Scores (SCIM & FIM)

• Mostly stable in 3 patients
• Subject 008 declined sharply due to non-treatment-related complications

MRI & Imaging

• No signs of graft rejection, tumor growth, or fluid buildup
• According to MRI & Diffusion tensor imaging, the stem cell treatment didn’t cause harm, but there was no clear evidence of structural healing seen on imaging either.

How the Cells Worked

Researchers concluded the stem cells likely didn’t turn into new nerve cells, but instead:

• Released healing signals
• Helped create a better environment for nerve repair or reconnection
• Promoted neuroplasticity, seen as new nerve activity on EMG

What We Don’t Know

• This was a small safety study. No control group, no blinding, and not statistically powered

Conclusion

This first-in-human Phase 1 trial shows that NSI-566 neural stem cell therapy is safe when injected into the spinal cords of patients with chronic SCI.

It did not reverse paralysis, but showed signs of biological activity, reduced pain, improved nerve signals and mild motor/sensory improvements in some patients.

Spinal Cord Stem Cell Injections Using Umbilical Cord Cells: Study from Sun Yat-Sen University, China (2020)

You can read more about the study here.

This study tested whether injecting human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells into the spinal canal of people with spinal cord injury could be done safely and whether it might improve motor, sensory, bladder, bowel, or autonomic function.

It was a Phase 1/2 trial, meaning it focused on both safety and early signs of effectiveness.

The research was led by Dr. Li-Min Rong at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Study Details:

• Participants: 102 patients with chronic spinal cord injury. 41 completed the full protocol and were analyzed.
•  Age range: Not specified, but eligibility was 18–65 years old.
• SCI chronicity: The people in the study had been living with their spinal cord injury (SCI) for an average of 45.15 months, or about 3 years and 9 months before they started the stem cell treatment.
• Follow-up: Patients were followed for 12 months after the final stem cell injection.

Procedure

• Delivery method:
  • Each patient received four spinal injections (once a month) of hUC-MSCs into the subarachnoid space. (The area around the spinal cord filled with cerebrospinal fluid.)
• Dosage:
  • Each injection used 1 million cells per kilogram of body weight. For example, a 70 kg person would receive 70 million cells per injection, four times in total.
• Control group: None
• Blinding: None (everyone knew stem cells were used)
  

Cell Used

• Type: Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (hUC-MSCs)
• Source: Donated human umbilical cords (allogeneic, not the patient’s own cells)
• Culturing & preparation: Not described in this trial record
• Viability, sterility, or expansion process: Not reported

Key Results

Safety

• No deaths or serious adverse events
• 44 of 102 patients had mild side effects:
  • Fever (25 patients)
  • Headache (14 patients)
  • Dizziness, transient muscle tension (few cases)
• All side effects were temporary and resolved without long-term problems

Neurological & Functional Improvements (ASIA Motor & Sensory Score: 0–324, higher = better)

• Improved from 158.15 (before treatment) to 183.88 (12 months later)

SCI Functional Rating (IANR-SCIFRS) Score: 0–51, higher = better

• Improved from 24.54 to 29.49

Bladder Function (Geffner Scale, 0–7, higher = better)

• Median score improved from 2 to 3

Bowel Function (NBD Scale, 0–47, lower = better)

• Median score improved from 6 to 3

Muscle Spasticity (Modified Ashworth, 0–16, lower = better)

• Improved from 3 to 2

Muscle Spasm (Penn Scale, 0–4, lower = better)

• Stayed stable at 1

Residual Urine Volume (ml, lower = better)

• Decreased from 67.65 ml to 27.90 ml

Imaging

• The study used ultrasound to check bladder residual urine, but did not use MRI or diffusion imaging (like DTI or DFI).
• No signs of tumors, swelling, or rejection were reported, but no imaging-based healing was evaluated.

How the Cells Worked

• The study did not explain how the hUC-MSCs were expected to work.
• No lab tests, biomarkers, or mechanisms (like immune modulation or nerve regeneration) were reported.

What We Don’t Know

• There was no control group (like a placebo), so improvements may not be due solely to the stem cells.
• No MRI or nerve imaging was done to show physical repair.
• The exact way the cells were prepared or processed wasn’t described.

Conclusion
This Phase 1/2 trial showed that umbilical cord stem cell injections into the spinal canal are safe for people with spinal cord injury.

Some patients had mild but measurable improvements in motor, sensory, bladder, and bowel function.
The results are encouraging but need to be confirmed by larger, controlled trials to know if the treatment really works.

iPSC-Based Neural Stem Cell Transplantation – Japan

(Here is the press release, published in May 2025)

Methodology

This early-phase study tested whether neural stem/progenitor cells, created from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), are safe to use in people with severe spinal cord injuries. Each patient received around 2 million cells injected directly into their spinal cord injury site. The iPSCs were reprogrammed from donor cells and turned into early-stage neural cells before transplant. Because these weren’t the patients’ own cells, each participant was given immunosuppressive medication to prevent rejection. Researchers monitored patients for one year using neurological tests, functional assessments (like the ability to move or eat independently), and safety evaluations.

Results

The treatment appeared safe. No serious side effects were linked to the stem cell transplant. Two of the four patients showed notable improvements:

• One patient regained the ability to stand on their own and began practicing walking.
  
• Two patients regained use of their arms, with enough improvement to eat independently.
  
•  The other two patients showed no significant changes in motor function, highlighting that results can vary
  
  What’s Interesting About This Study?
  This is one of the early human trials using iPSC-derived neural cells for spinal cord injury, marking a major step forward in regenerative medicine. Unlike embryonic stem cells, iPSCs are made by reprogramming adult cells, avoiding ethical issues and potentially reducing tumor risk. What’s also unique is that the study treated people during the subacute phase (2–4 weeks after injury), a window that may offer better potential for regeneration. The fact that two patients with complete paralysis regained meaningful function is a strong signal that iPSC therapies may hold real promise. BUT more research is needed to understand who benefits most and why.
  

Reviews looking at Stem Cell Therapy for Spinal Cord Injuries

A review is a type of scientific paper where researchers summarize and analyze the results of many past studies on a topic, instead of running their own new experiment.

It’s like reading all the available evidence and then explaining what it shows overall. What’s working, what isn’t, and where the gaps are.

Unlike a clinical trial, which tests a treatment on real patients, a review pulls together findings from multiple trials to give a big-picture view.

 2024 Review on Adipose-Derived Stem Cells (ADSCs) for Spinal Cord Injury: Japan

You can read the full review here (Elsevier).

A group of scientists in Japan from institutions including the University of the Ryukyus, Fujita Health University and Jichi Medical University reviewed the evidence on using adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) to treat people with spinal cord injury (SCI). 

What They Looked At
The review analyzed 7 human clinical studies involving adipose-derived stem cells for spinal cord injury. These included both completed and ongoing trials.

All studies had the following in common:

• Used autologous ADSCs (taken from the patient’s own fat)
• Expanded the cells in a lab (no raw fat or SVF)

What They Wanted to Find Out

• Can ADSCs improve movement or sensation in people with SCI?
• Are these therapies safe in humans?
• Is there a connection between the dose of cells and success?
• What’s the best way to deliver the cells?
• How do the cells actually work in the body?

What They Found

1. Effectiveness (Based on Functional Improvement)
   Five completed studies showed meaningful improvements in some patients:
   • Hur et al. (2016):
     • 14 patients with SCI (AIS A–D)
     • 36% improved in AIS grade
     • 43% improved in motor scores
     • 57% improved in sensory scores
   • Tien et al. (2019):
     • 47 patients, some received surgery alone, others surgery + ADSCs
     • Patients who got stem cells had nearly double the motor and sensory gains
   • Bydon et al. (2020):
     • 1 chronic SCI patient, 100M cells, intrathecal
     • Saw significant motor and sensory recovery
   • Thakkar et al. (2016):
     • 10 patients with paraplegia
     • Mixed improvements using neuronal-primed ADSCs
   • Ra et al. (2011):
     • 8 patients, IV injection, focused on safety only
     • No improvement in symptoms
   • Two studies were ongoing clinical trials and had not yet published outcome data.
2. Mechanism of Action
   The authors state clearly that ADSCs likely do not become neurons in the human body. Instead, they help by:
   • Releasing growth factors and cytokines (e.g., BDNF, VEGF, GDNF)
   • Reducing inflammation and scar tissue
   • Possibly activating the body’s own repair cells
3. Cell Sources and Preparation
   • All 7 studies used autologous ADSCs, meaning the cells came from the patient.
   • In all cases, the cells were culture-expanded in GMP conditions.
   • No studies used unprocessed fat (SVF) or donor-derived cells.
4. Delivery Method
   • 6 out of 7 studies used intrathecal injection (into the spinal canal)
   • Only Ra et al. (2011) used intravenous (IV) infusion
   • No human studies used intralesional (into spinal cord tissue) injections
5. Dosing Insights
   • Doses ranged from 30 million to 100 million cells
   • Tien et al. (2019) showed better results in higher-dose groups
6. Safety
   • No serious adverse events were reported across any of the clinical trials.
   • Intrathecal injection was well-tolerated.
7. Limitations in the Studies Reviewed
   • Small sample sizes (many studies had <15 patients)
   • Lack of control groups (except Tien et al.)
   • Short follow-up in some cases (3–6 months typical)
   • Different cell doses, preparation methods and outcome measures

What They Concluded

• ADSC therapy is safe and shows promising potential to improve sensory and motor function in people with SCI.
• The cells likely work through healing signals (paracrine effects), not by becoming new spinal neurons.
• Intrathecal delivery of high-dose, autologous, culture-expanded ADSCs appears to be the most promising method so far.
• Larger, standardized, controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm these effects and determine optimal protocols.

2022 Review on Stem Cell Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury (China)

You can read the full study here (BMC Medicine): https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02482-2

A team of researchers from Lanzhou University and Naval Medical University in China reviewed all existing clinical data on using stem cell therapy to treat people with spinal cord injury (SCI). They analyzed 62 clinical trials from around the world involving 2,439 patients.

What They Looked At

The review analyzed:

• 62 human clinical trials
  • 42 were single-arm (no control group)
  • 20 had control groups
• These trials used various stem cell types, including:
  • Bone marrow MSCs (BMSCs), Umbilical cord MSCs (UCMSCs), Neural stem cells (NSCs), Embryonic stem cells (ESCs), Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), Adipose-derived MSCs (ADMSCs), and Cord blood stem cells (CBSCs)
• Patients were aged 6–65 years; injuries ranged from 3 days to 28 years old

What They Wanted to Find Out

• Can stem cells improve movement and nerve function in people with SCI?
• Are these therapies safe?
• Which cell types work best?
• How do stem cells actually work inside the body?
• Is there a best delivery method or optimal dose?

What They Found

1. Effectiveness (Based on ASIA Score)
   • 48.9% of patients improved by at least one grade on the ASIA scale (neurological function). So nearly half of the patients improved. For example, someone might go from Grade A to B (no feeling → some feeling) or C to D (weak movement → stronger movement).
     • 95% Confidence Interval: 40.8%–56.9%
   • Urinary function improved in 42.1% of patients
   • Gastrointestinal function improved in 52.0%
2. Cell Types: Which Performed Best?
   The most effective cell types (ranked by ASIA improvement rates):
   1. Hematopoietic Stem Cells (HSCs)
      
   2. Neural Stem Cells (NSCs)
      
   3. Umbilical Cord MSCs (UCMSCs)
      
   4. Bone Marrow MSCs (BMSCs)
      
   5. Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs)
      
   6. Adipose-Derived MSCs (ADMSCs)
      
   7. Cord Blood Stem Cells (CBSCs)
      
      Note: These rankings are not definitive due to unequal study numbers and lack of head-to-head comparisons.
3. Mechanism of Action
   In these clinical trials, stem cells did not become new neurons.
   
   Instead, the researchers explain that stem cells likely helped recovery by sending out healing signals, known as paracrine effects. These signals may have helped the spinal cord by:
   • Releasing growth factors like BDNF, VEGF, and GDNF. These are natural proteins that support cell survival and tissue repair
     
   • Reducing inflammation and cell death (apoptosis)
     
   • Limiting scar tissue from forming around the injury
     
   • Helping damaged nerves regrow (axon regeneration)
     
   • Supporting repair of the nerve’s protective coating (myelin)
   • The researchers say this creates a “favorable microenvironment” that helps the spinal cord heal. Even if the stem cells themselves don’t become new nerve cells.
4.  Delivery Methods
   • Routes varied: intrathecal, intralesional, venous, subdural, and others
     
   • No clear evidence on which method is best, more standardization needed
5. Dosing Insights
   • Doses ranged from 50,000 to nearly 20 billion cells
   • No consistent link found between dose and outcome due to study differences
   • Future trials should test dose-response relationships systematically
6. Safety
   28 types of adverse events (AEs) were reported
   Most common (incidence >20%):
   • Neuropathic pain
   • Muscle spasms
   • Vomiting
   • Urinary tract infection
   • Abnormal sensations
   • No serious side effects like tumor formation were reported. But follow-up periods were often too short to detect long-term risks
7. Limitations in the Studies Reviewed
   • Small sample sizes (many trials had <30 patients)
     
   • Poor design: No blinding, missing control groups
     
   • Inconsistent definitions of “stem cells” (some trials used mixed or minimally processed cells)
     
   • Short follow-up: Often <12 months
     
   • No standardization of cell type, dose, delivery, or outcome measures
8. What They Concluded
   • Stem cell therapy is promising for improving motor and sensory function in SCI, but:
     • Current evidence is not strong enough for widespread clinical use
     • Clinical trials must improve in design, size, consistency, and follow-up
   • The most likely benefit comes from healing signals, not from stem cells replacing damaged neurons
   • Until better trials are completed, stem cell therapy should be used cautiously and experimentally
     
     
     
     

Conclusion

Stem cell therapy for spinal cord injuries is a rapidly growing area of research, and while there’s no cure yet, early human trials are showing signs of real promise. Here’s what the science tells us so far.

Most Studied Cell Types
The most commonly studied stem cells are mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Cells taken from bone marrow, fat, or umbilical cords. Other types include neural stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are being tested in more advanced studies. These three categories make up most of the research.

Success Rates
In general, about 40–75% of patients in trials saw improvements in things like movement, pain, or bladder control. For example, in Japan’s Stemirac trial, 12 out of 13 patients showed noticeable recovery. But it’s important to understand what “success” means in these cases.

No Proof of Disc or Nerve Regeneration
Almost all studies focused on improving symptoms, like pain relief or motor function, not on actually regrowing the spinal cord or discs. In fact, no human trial in the document proved that stem cells regenerated tissue when checked by scans. The improvements were mostly based on how people felt and functioned, not what could be seen inside the spine.

How the Cells Work
The research shows that stem cells likely help by sending healing signals, not by turning into new nerve cells. These signals can reduce inflammation, protect nerves, and encourage some recovery, but they don’t rebuild the spine.

Who’s Leading the Research?
South East Asia is leading the charge here, mainly with Japan & China. But this is a growing area of interest in the US too.

Is One Type of Stem Cell Better?
So far, no cell type has clearly outperformed the others. Some studies suggest neural or blood-forming stem cells may be more effective, but the evidence isn’t strong enough yet. Results vary a lot depending on the study.

Best Way to Deliver the Cells?
The most common and safest method is injecting cells into the fluid around the spinal cord (intrathecal injection). It’s minimally invasive and well tolerated. More aggressive methods like injecting directly into the spinal cord might work better but come with more risk.

If you’re thinking about Stem Cell treatment for your spinal cord injury, the studies are a little early so be aware of this when making you decision!