Why are stem cell therapies more preferred (theoretically) over current measures?

Question

i understand that when stem cells are used to treat injuries using induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS), they can prevent the risk of having any tissue rejection and thus, there isn't a need for use of immunosuppressant drugs.

However, based on the researches using animal models thus far, I note that surgeries are still the main mode of delivery of such stem cell-regenerated organs/organoids. Meaning, to transplant a part of a organ or a tissue into the animal model, a surgery still needs to be done - how is this different from current measures?

Specifically, how are stem cells going to aid or further research into areas such as curing heart or lung diseases and I wonder how are these methods going to be better than current ones.

Answer 1

Stem cell therapy was never going to replace surgery, and it isn't supposed to. We just don't have the tools to move stuff around inside the patient without breaking the skin.

Stem cells therapies offer replacement parts for organs that can't regenerate themselves. For example, after a heart attack the heart often forms a scar where heart tissue has been injured or died. The scar often doesn't conduct electrical signals properly or doesn't beat at all, both of which are a problem for a heart. The scar can't be surgically removed, because there's nothing to replace it with. Stem cell therapy would provide new heart muscle to replace the damaged tissue.

There are of course exceptions, some stem cell therapies are injected and left to 'settle' in the right tissues. That kind of therapy generally doesn't replace a surgery either, because that kind of problem can't be fixed with surgery at all.