Evolving Landscape of Regenerative Therapies: Cell-Based and Cell-Free Approaches for Chronic Low Back Pain

Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability globally, affecting over 600 million individuals. Intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD) is a principal structural contributor, yet conventional treatments, including pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, and surgical intervention, do not reverse the underlying degenerative pathology. Regenerative medicine has introduced a spectrum of biological therapies, ranging from cell-based mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) transplantation to cell-free modalities, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet lysate, MSC-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs), and MSC-derived secretomes. However, these approaches have largely been studied in isolation, without a unified framework to compare their respective advantages and limitations in CLBP secondary to IVDD. Accordingly, this narrative review aims to provide an integrated and comparative evaluation of these regenerative strategies within a single translational and clinical context. Methods: For this narrative review, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 to January 2026 using terms combining regenerative modalities with intervertebral disc degeneration, and chronic low back pain. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, systematic reviews, and preclinical studies with translational relevance were included. Results: Intradiscal MSC therapy has demonstrated safety across multiple phase I–III trials, but two recent landmark RCTs (RESPINE and the Mesoblast phase III trial) failed to meet primary efficacy endpoints, highlighting the gap between preclinical promise and clinical outcomes. PRP has the largest clinical evidence base, with level II evidence supporting short- to medium-term pain relief for discogenic pain, although standardization remains a critical barrier. Platelet lysate, MSC-derived EVs, and MSC-derived secretomes show compelling preclinical data, including extracellular matrix restoration, anti-inflammatory modulation, and attenuation of nucleus pulposus cell apoptosis, but remain at early translational stages for spinal applications, with no completed RCTs. The hostile disc microenvironment (avascular, hypoxic, acidic, and nutrient-poor) poses unique challenges for all regenerative modalities, differing fundamentally from other musculoskeletal applications. Conclusions: The studies included in this narrative review suggest that no single regenerative modality has yet shown consistent and unequivocal efficacy for CLBP secondary to IVDD across clinical trials. Cell-free approaches offer manufacturing, scalability, and safety advantages over cell-based therapies, but lack clinical validation. Future progress requires standardized preparation protocols, disc-specific delivery systems, patient phenotyping strategies, and rigorously designed comparative clinical trials. This narrative review provides a framework for researchers and clinicians to evaluate these therapies in context rather than isolation.