Comparison of two different matrix-based autologous chondrocyte transplantation systems: 1 year follow-up results
- 97 Downloads
The treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee is a common problem in orthopaedic surgery. Autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT) is one of the few reliable treatment options of cartilage defects with good long-term outcomes. The improvement of ACT led to the matrix-based ACT (MACT). The purpose of the study was to compare two different commercially available MACT systems.
Eleven patients with a cartilage defect of the knee were treated with the MACI® system and another nine patients with the CaRes® implant. The patients were prospectively followed and re-examined after one year.
One year after surgery all but one patient have significantly improved in their clinical outcome. Both types of MACT revealed similar results in terms of increase in level of activity, pain relief and knee function.
The study showed that MACT is a good therapeutic option for full-size defects of the femoral condyle. The MACI® implant seems to be easier to handle which is reflected by smaller incisions and a shorter operation time.
KeywordsCartilage defect Autologous chondrocyte transplantation Arthroscopy Chondrocytes Matrix-based autologous chondrocyte transplantation
- 5.Gooding CR, Bartlett W, Bentley G, Skinner JA, Carrington R, Flanagan A. A prospective, randomised study comparing two techniques of autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects in the knee: periosteum covered versus type I/III collagen covered. Knee. 2006;13(3):203–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Bartlett W, Skinner JA, Gooding CR, Carrington RW, Flanagan AM, Briggs TW, et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation versus matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects of the knee: a prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(5):640–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Behrens P, Bosch U, Bruns J, Erggelet C, Esenwein SA, Gaissmaier C, et al. Indications and implementation of recommendations of the working group “tissue regeneration and tissue substitutes” for autologous chondrocyte transplantation (act). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2004;142(5):529–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.ICRS. Cartilage evaluation package. In: package/ICRS evaluation.pdf. 2000. http://www.cartilage.org/Evaluation.
- 14.Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J, Haspl M, Bohnsack M, Fortems Y, et al. Characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better structural repair when treating symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee in a randomized controlled trial versus microfracture. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(2):235–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Kon E, Gobbi A, Filardo G, Delcogliano M, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M. Arthroscopic second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture for chondral lesions of the knee: prospective non-randomized study at 5 years. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(1):33–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Marlovits S, Striessnig G, Kutscha-Lissberg F, Resinger C, Aldrian SM, Vecsei V, et al. Early postoperative adherence of matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects of the femoral condyle. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(6):451–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Wasiak J, Clar C, Villanueva E. Autologous cartilage implantation for full thickness articular cartilage defects of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD003323.Google Scholar