Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative efficacy of cartilage repair procedures in the knee: a network meta-analysis

  • knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

While numerous randomized controlled trials have compared surgical treatments for cartilage defects of the knee, the comparative efficacy of these treatments is still poorly understood. The goal of this network meta-analysis was to synthesize these randomized data into a comprehensive model allowing pairwise comparisons of all treatment options and treatment rankings based on multiple measures of efficacy. We hypothesized that advanced chondral procedures would have improved outcomes when compared to microfracture.

Methods

The MEDLINE, COCHRANE and EMBASE databases were searched systematically up to January 2015. The primary outcome was re-operation measured at 2, 5 and 10 years. Secondary outcomes included Tegner and Lysholm scores, the presence of hyaline cartilage on post-operative biopsy and graft hypertrophy. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed, and the results are presented as odds ratios and mean differences with 95 % CIs. We ranked the comparative effects of all treatments with surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities.

Results

Nineteen RCT from 15 separate cohorts including 855 patients were eligible for inclusion. No differences were seen in re-operation rates at 2 years. At 5 years osteochondral autografts (OC Auto) had a lower re-operation rate than microfracture (OR 0.03, 95 % CI 0.00–0.49), and at 10 years OC Auto had a lower re-operation rate than microfracture (OR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.12–0.92), but a higher re-operation rate than second-generation ACI (OR 5.81, 95 % CI 2.33–14.47). No significant differences in Tegner or Lysholm scores were seen at 2 years. Functional outcome data at 5 and 10 years were not available. Hyaline repair tissue was more common with OC Auto (OR 16.13, 95 % CI 2.80–92.91) and 2nd generation ACI (OR 7.69, 95 % CI 1.17–50) than microfracture, though the clinical significance of this is unknown. Second-generation ACI (OR 0.12, 95 % CI 0.02–0.59) and MACI (OR 0.13, 95 % CI 0.03–0.59) had significantly lower rates of graft hypertrophy than first-generation ACI. Second-generation ACI, OC Auto and MACI were the highest ranked treatments (in order) when all outcome measures were included.

Conclusions

Microfracture and advanced cartilage repair techniques have similar re-operation rates and functional outcomes at 2 years. However, advanced repair techniques provide higher-quality repair tissue and might afford lower re-operation rates at 5 and 10 years.

Level of evidence

Meta-analysis studies, Level I.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anders S, Volz M, Frick H, Gellissen J (2013) A randomized, controlled trial comparing autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC(R)) to microfracture: analysis of 1- and 2-year follow-up data of 2 centers. Open Orthop J 7:133–143

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartlett W, Skinner JA, Gooding CR, Carrington RW, Flanagan AM, Briggs TW, Bentley G (2005) Autologous chondrocyte implantation versus matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects of the knee: a prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(5):640–645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Basad E, Ishaque B, Bachmann G, Sturz H, Steinmeyer J (2010) Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee: a 2-year randomised study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(4):519–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bentley G, Biant LC, Carrington RW, Akmal M, Goldberg A, Williams AM, Skinner JA, Pringle J (2003) A prospective, randomised comparison of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for osteochondral defects in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(2):223–230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bentley G, Biant LC, Vijayan S, Macmull S, Skinner JA, Carrington RW (2012) Minimum ten-year results of a prospective randomised study of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for symptomatic articular cartilage lesions of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(4):504–509

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Camp CL, Stuart MJ, Krych AJ (2014) Current concepts of articular cartilage restoration techniques in the knee. Sports Health 6(3):265–273

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G (2013) Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS ONE 8(10):e76654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Cole BJ, Kercher JS (2010) Special issue on microfracture. Cartilage 1(2):77

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cole BJ, Pascual-Garrido C, Grumet RC (2010) Surgical management of articular cartilage defects in the knee. Instr Course Lect 59:181–204

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Corbett MS, Higgins JP, Woolacott NF (2014) Assessing baseline imbalance in randomised trials: implications for the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Res Synth Methods 5(1):79–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crawford DC, DeBerardino TM, Williams RJ 3rd (2012) NeoCart, an autologous cartilage tissue implant, compared with microfracture for treatment of distal femoral cartilage lesions: an FDA phase-II prospective, randomized clinical trial after two years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(11):979–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. de Windt TS, Bekkers JE, Creemers LB, Dhert WJ, Saris DB (2009) Patient profiling in cartilage regeneration: prognostic factors determining success of treatment for cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med 37(Suppl 1):58S–62S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dozin B, Malpeli M, Cancedda R, Bruzzi P, Calcagno S, Molfetta L, Priano F, Kon E, Marcacci M (2005) Comparative evaluation of autologous chondrocyte implantation and mosaicplasty: a multicentered randomized clinical trial. Clin J Sport Med 15(4):220–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gooding CR, Bartlett W, Bentley G, Skinner JA, Carrington R, Flanagan A (2006) A prospective, ranomised study comparing two techniques of autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects in the knee: periosteum covered versus type I/III collagen covered. Knee 13(3):203–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goyal D, Keyhani S, Lee EH, Hui JH (2013) Evidence-based status of microfracture technique: a systematic review of level I and II studies. Arthroscopy 29(9):1579–1588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gudas R, Gudaite A, Pocius A, Gudiene A, Cekanauskas E, Monastyreckiene E, Basevicius A (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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gudas R, Kalesinskas RJ, Kimtys V, Stankevicius E, Toliusis V, Bernotavicius G, Smailys A (2005) A prospective randomized clinical study of mosaic osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of osteochondral defects in the knee joint in young athletes. Arthroscopy 21(9):1066–1075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gudas R, Simonaityte R, Cekanauskas E, Tamosiunas R (2009) A prospective, randomized clinical study of osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of osteochondritis dissecans in the knee joint in children. J Pediatr Orthop 29(7):741–748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hjelle K, Solheim E, Strand T, Muri R, Brittberg M (2002) Articular cartilage defects in 1,000 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy 18(7):730–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Horas U, Pelinkovic D, Herr G, Aigner T, Schnettler R (2003) Autologous chondrocyte implantation and osteochondral cylinder transplantation in cartilage repair of the knee joint. A prospective, comparative trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(2):185–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, Mulrow C, Catala-Lopez F, Gotzsche PC, Dickersin K, Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162(11):777–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kane P, Frederick R, Tucker B, Dodson CC, Anderson JA, Ciccotti MG, Freedman KB (2013) Surgical restoration/repair of articular cartilage injuries in athletes. Phys Sports Med 41(2):75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim S, Bosque J, Meehan JP, Jamali A, Marder R (2011) Increase in outpatient knee arthroscopy in the United States: a comparison of National Surveys of Ambulatory Surgery, 1996 and 2006. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(11):994–1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Knutsen G, Drogset JO, Engebretsen L, Grontvedt T, Isaksen V, Ludvigsen TC, Roberts S, Solheim E, Strand T, Johansen O (2007) A randomized trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture. Findings at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(10):2105–2112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Knutsen G, Engebretsen L, Ludvigsen TC, Drogset JO, Grontvedt T, Solheim E, Strand T, Roberts S, Isaksen V, Johansen O (2004) Autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture in the knee. A randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(3):455–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP (2013) Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ 346:f2914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mithoefer K, McAdams T, Williams RJ, Kreuz PC, Mandelbaum BR (2009) Clinical efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage repair in the knee: an evidence-based systematic analysis. Am J Sports Med 37(10):2053–2063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Montgomery SR, Foster BD, Ngo SS, Terrell RD, Wang JC, Petrigliano FA, McAllister DR (2014) Trends in the surgical treatment of articular cartilage defects of the knee in the United States. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(9):2070–2075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Moran CJ, Pascual-Garrido C, Chubinskaya S, Potter HG, Warren RF, Cole BJ, Rodeo SA (2014) Restoration of articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(4):336–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Palmer SC, Mavridis D, Navarese E, Craig JC, Tonelli M, Salanti G, Wiebe N, Ruospo M, Wheeler DC, Strippoli GF (2015) Comparative efficacy and safety of blood pressure-lowering agents in adults with diabetes and kidney disease: a network meta-analysis. Lancet 385(9982):2047–2056

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roos EM, Engelhart L, Ranstam J, Anderson AF, Irrgang JJ, Marx RG, Tegner Y, Davis AM (2011) ICRS recommendation document: patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with articular cartilage defects. Cartilage 2(2):122–136

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Safran MR, Seiber K (2010) The evidence for surgical repair of articular cartilage in the knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18(5):259–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP (2011) Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 64(2):163–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Higgins JP (2014) Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9(7):e99682

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Samuelson EM, Brown DE (2012) Cost-effectiveness analysis of autologous chondrocyte implantation: a comparison of periosteal patch versus type I/III collagen membrane. Am J Sports Med 40(6):1252–1258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J, Almqvist KF, Verdonk R, Bellemans J, Luyten FP (2009) Treatment of symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee: characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better clinical outcome at 36 months in a randomized trial compared to microfracture. Am J Sports Med 37(Suppl 1):10S–19S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Saris DBF, Vanlauwe J, Victor J, Haspl M, Bohnsack M, Fortems Y, Vandekerckhove B, Almqvist KF, Claes T, Handelberg F, Lagae K, Van Der Bauwhede J, Vandenneucker H, Yang KGA, Jelic M, Verdonk R, Veulemans N Jr, Bellemans J, Luyten FP (2008) 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 36(2):235–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Schmitt LC, Quatman CE, Paterno MV, Best TM, Flanigan DC (2014) Functional outcomes after surgical management of articular cartilage lesions in the knee: a systematic literature review to guide postoperative rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44(8):565-A10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Stanish WD, McCormack R, Forriol F, Mohtadi N, Pelet S, Desnoyers J, Restrepo A, Shive MS (2013) Novel scaffold-based BST-CarGel treatment results in superior cartilage repair compared with microfracture in a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(18):1640–1650. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Thoma LM, Flanigan DC, Chaudhari AM, Siston RA, Best TM, Schmitt LC (2014) Quadriceps femoris strength and sagittal-plane knee biomechanics during stair ascent in individuals with articular cartilage defects in the knee. J Sport Rehabil 23(3):259–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ulstein S, Aroen A, Rotterud JH, Loken S, Engebretsen L, Heir S (2014) Microfracture technique versus osteochondral autologous transplantation mosaicplasty in patients with articular chondral lesions of the knee: a prospective randomized trial with long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(6):1207–1215

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Vanlauwe J, Saris DB, Victor J, Almqvist KF, Bellemans J, Luyten FP (2011) Five-year outcome of characterized chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture for symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee: early treatment matters. Am J Sports Med 39(12):2566–2574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Widuchowski W, Widuchowski J, Trzaska T (2007) Articular cartilage defects: study of 25,124 knee arthroscopies. Knee 14(3):177–182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zeifang F, Oberle D, Nierhoff C, Richter W, Moradi B, Schmitt H (2010) Autologous chondrocyte implantation using the original periosteum-cover technique versus matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Sports Med 38(5):924–933

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author contributions

J.C.R. conceived the study, performed literature review, conducted all statistical analyses and prepared manuscript, figures and tables; G.L.C. performed literature review, extracted all data from source papers and prepared manuscript; B.J.C. and A.B.Y. conceived the study and edited and reviewed manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Sports Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison, St, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Gregory L. Cvetanovich, Brian J. Cole & Adam B. Yanke

  2. Duke University School of Medicine, DUMC Box 3371, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Jonathan C. Riboh

Authors
  1. Jonathan C. Riboh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory L. Cvetanovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian J. Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adam B. Yanke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan C. Riboh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Jonathan Riboh and Gregory Cvetanovich: None; Brian Cole: Aesculap/B.Braun: Research support, American Journal of Orthopedics: Editorial or governing board, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine: Board or committee member, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons: Board or committee member, Arthrex, Inc: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support, Arthroscopy: Editorial or governing board, Arthroscopy Association of North America: Board or committee member, Athletico: Other financial or material support, Carticept: Stock or stock Options, Cytori: Research support, DJ Orthopaedics: IP royalties, Elsevier Publishing: IP royalties, International Cartilage Repair Society: Board or committee member, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery—American: Editorial or governing board, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery: Editorial or governing board, Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Editorial or governing board, Medipost: Research support, National Institutes of Health (NIAMS & NICHD): Research support, Ossur: Other financial or material support, Regentis: Paid consultant; Stock or stock Options, Saunders/Mosby-Elsevier: Publishing royalties, financial or material support, SLACK Incorporated: Publishing royalties, financial or material support, Smith & Nephew: Other financial or material support, Tornier: Other financial or material support, Zimmer: Paid consultant; Research support; Adam Yanke: Arthrex, Inc: Research support, NuTech: Research support.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

As this was a meta analysis of published papers, no IRB approval.

Informed consent

No patient consent was required.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 7 and Table 7.

Table 7 Raw data from included studies
Full size table
Fig. 7
figure 7

Risk of bias graph. The authors’ assessment of risk of bias is illustrated by the proportion of studies with each judgment (low risk = green, high risk = red, unclear risk = yellow) based on the standard seven criteria put forth by the Cochrane Group

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riboh, J.C., Cvetanovich, G.L., Cole, B.J. et al. Comparative efficacy of cartilage repair procedures in the knee: a network meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25, 3786–3799 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4300-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4300-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation