Clinical and radiographical ten years long-term outcome of microfracture vs. autologous chondrocyte implantation: a matched-pair analysis
- 298 Downloads
To compare the clinical and radiographical long-term outcome of microfracture (MFX) and first-generation periosteum-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI-P).
All subjects (n = 86) who had been treated with knee joint ACI-P or microfracture (n = 76) with a post-operative follow-up of at least ten years were selected. Clinical pre- and post-operative outcomes were analyzed by numeric analog scale (NAS) for pain, Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC, and KOOS score. Radiographical evaluation was visualized by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Assessment of the regenerate quality was performed by the magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) and modified knee osteoarthritis scoring system (mKOSS). Relaxation time (RT) of T2 maps enabled a microstructural cartilage analysis.
MFX and ACI of 44 patients (24 females, 20 males; mean age 38.9 ± 12.1 years) resulted in a good long-term outcome with low pain scores and significant improved clinical scores. The final Lysholm and functional NAS scores were significantly higher in the MFX group (Lysholm: MFX 82 ± 15 vs. ACI-P 71 ± 18 p = 0.027; NAS function: MFX 8.1 ± 3.5 vs. ACI-P 6.0 ± 2.5; p = 0.003). The MOCART score did not show any qualitative differences. KOSS analysis demonstrated that cartilage repair of small defects resulted in a significant better outcome. T2-relaxation times were without difference between groups at the region of the regenerate tissue.
This study did not demonstrate coherent statistical differences between both cartilage repair procedures. MFX might be superior in the treatment of small cartilage defects.
KeywordsMicrofracture Periosteum-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation Knee osteoarthritis scoring system Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study was approved by the local ethical committee (EK262-13).
- 2.Buckwalter JA, Mankin HJ, Grodzinsky AJ (2005) Articular cartilage and osteoarthritis. Instr Course Lect 54:465–480Google Scholar
- 3.Niemeyer P, Feucht MJ, Fritz J et al (2016) Cartilage repair surgery for full-thickness defects of the knee in Germany: indications and epidemiological data from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(7):891–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2453-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Riboh JC, Cvetanovich GL, Cole BJ et al (2016) Comparative efficacy of cartilage repair procedures in the knee: a network meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4300-1
- 6.Brun P, Dickinson SC, Zavan B et al (2008) Characteristics of repair tissue in second-look and third-look biopsies from patients treated with engineered cartilage: relationship to symptomatology and time after implantation. Arthritis Res Ther 10(6):R132. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar2549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Salzmann GM, Erdle B, Porichis S et al (2014) Long-term T2 and qualitative MRI morphology after first-generation knee autologous chondrocyte implantation: cartilage ultrastructure is not correlated to clinical or qualitative MRI outcome. Am J Sports Med 42(8):1832–1840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514536682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Marlovits S, Singer P, Zeller P et al (2006) Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) for the evaluation of autologous chondrocyte transplantation: determination of interobserver variability and correlation to clinical outcome after 2 years. Eur J Radiol 57(1):16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Niemeyer P, Albrecht D, Andereya S et al (2016) Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) for cartilage defects of the knee: a guideline by the working group “Clinical Tissue Regeneration” of the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU). Knee 23(3):426–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Gudas R, Gudaite A, Pocius A et al (2012) Ten-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized clinical study of mosaic osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of osteochondral defects in the knee joint of athletes. Am J Sports Med 40(11):2499–2508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512458763 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Niemeyer P, Andereya S, Angele P et al (2013) Stellenwert der autologen Chondrozytentransplantation (ACT) in der Behandlung von Knorpelschäden des Kniegelenks - Empfehlungen der AG Klinische Geweberegeneration der DGOU (Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) for cartilage defects of the knee: a guideline by the working group “Tissue Regeneration” of the German Society of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (DGOU)). Z Orthop Unfall 151(1):38–47. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1328207 Google Scholar
- 26.Ossendorff R, Grad S, Stoddart MJ et al (2017) Autologous chondrocyte implantation in osteoarthritic surroundings: TNFα and its inhibition by adalimumab in a knee-specific bioreactor. Am J Sports Med. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517737497