Biological Reconstruction of Localized Full-Thickness Cartilage Defects of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Level 1 Studies with a Minimum Follow-Up of 5 Years

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the best available mid- to long-term evidence of surgical procedures for the treatment of localized full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee.

Design

Systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines of Level 1 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), meta-analyses of RCTs and systematic reviews with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Data extracted included patient demographics, defect characteristics, clinical and radiological outcomes, as well as treatment failures.

Results

Six RCTs and 3 Level 1 systematic reviews were included. Two RCTs compared microfracture (MFx) to periosteum-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI-P), 1 to matrix-associated ACI (M-ACI) and 2 to osteochondral autograft transplantation (OAT). One study compared OAT to collagen membrane covered ACI (ACI-C). The 3 Level 1 systematic reviews/meta-analyses assessed the outcome of MFx, OAT, and various ACI methods in RCTs. OAT showed significantly better outcomes compared with MFx. In the 2 RCTs comparing ACI-P and MFx, no significant differences in clinical outcomes were seen, whereas significantly better outcomes were reported for M-ACI versus MFx in 1 study including patients with larger defects (5 cm²), and for ACI-C versus OAT in terms of Cincinnati Score. Higher failure rates were reported for MFx compared with OAT and for OAT compared with ACI-C, while no significant differences in failure rates were observed for ACI-P compared to MFx.

Conclusion

Restorative cartilage procedures (ACI-C or M-ACI and OAT) are associated with better long-term clinical outcomes including lower complication and failure rates when compared with reparative techniques (MFx). Among the restorative procedures, OAT seems to be inferior to ACI especially in larger defects after longer follow-up periods.

Level of evidence:

Level I: Systematic review of Level I studies

Keywords

knee cartilage defect autologous chondrocyte implantation microfracture osteochondral autograft transplantation systematic review

Introduction

Chondral or osteochondral lesions induce pre-arthritis, a stage where cellular processes influenced by risk factors are initiated but have not yet resulted in macroscopic structural changes of osteoarthritis (OA). Similar to meniscus injuries, the stress effect of cartilage damage increases with lesion size while the compensatory ability of the surrounding intact joint surface decreases. This is why lesions larger than approximately 2 cm² are at significant risk of arthritis in the spontaneous course or after unsuitable defect treatment compared with smaller lesions.^1-4

Once pathologic cartilage or osteochondral damage has occurred due to an acute event or recurring microtrauma, the destruction of the joint can continue to progress due to poor joint biomechanics. This leads to recurring inflammatory episodes accompanied by the induction of cartilage-destructive metabolic pathways.^4,5

Chronic exposure of the affected joint to high or peak loads, which may result, inter alia, from obesity or high-impact sports activity, can significantly accelerate the course of the disease. Therefore, in addition to the extent of the joint deformity causing pre-arthritis (e.g., the extent of primary cartilage damage, axis deviation, instability, meniscus damage) and the accompanying risk factors (e.g., obesity), time is also an essential factor in the development of OA.^5,6

The relationships described above indicate what is essential from a medical point of view. As much as possible, the therapeutic goal must be the prevention or minimization of pre-arthritis and related risk factors to prevent or at a minimum delay the development of degenerative changes.

Most comprehensive studies show that the clinical outcome success of cartilage repair surgery declines with longer symptom duration and the number of previously failed interventions.^7-10 Therefore, repair of localized cartilage defects with persisting symptoms and in the absence of contraindications should be carried out as early as possible and with a procedure suitable for the defect.

Furthermore, in addition to the repair of localized full-thickness cartilage defects, which are often associated with a significant reduction in quality of life similar to manifest gonarthritis, concomitant pathologies such as axis malalignment or joint instability must also be addressed independently of the cartilage repair modality used.^4,11,12

Surgical Techniques to Treat Cartilage Defects

There is no standard operative treatment suitable for all shapes, sizes, or locations of focal chondral or osteochondral knee lesions from a scientific or routine clinical care point of view. The currently available clinical options complement each other in terms of their indication and have recently been differentiated into those with reparative or restorative properties.

Reparative methods (such as bone marrow-stimulating techniques with and without biomaterial augmentation) are characterized by the formation of fibrous cartilage, whereas restorative methods such as autologous (OAT) or allogeneic osteochondral transfer (OCA) and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) form cartilage with hyaline properties.¹³

There is increasing evidence from various studies with longer follow-up periods that restorative procedures have better long-term results with lower failure rates.^3,14-17

The aim of this systematic review was to identify the most appropriate surgical therapy for patients with cartilage defects of the knee based on the best available evidence. Therefore, only Level 1 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and systematic reviews with a follow-up time of at least 5 years were included in the systematic review.

Methods

Search Strategy

The systematic literature review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines¹⁸ using the PubMed database. All publications retrieved were selected according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria described in the titles/abstracts and/or full-text. The search strategy, keywords used and filters applied in the search are reported in Supplementary Appendix 1.

Selection Criteria

Criteria for selection and further evaluation were full-text articles in English or German with a publication date between 2011 and 2021, clinical (human) data, evidence Level 1 RCTs, meta-analyses of RCTs and systematic reviews, comparison of at least 2 cartilage repair methods with at least 20 participants per treatment arm in RCTs, defect localization/treatment in the knee joint and reported clinical outcome after a follow-up of at least 5 years. Treatment of OA was an exclusion criterion as the defect situation in OA is different from non-OA knees. Articles were screened by 2 separate investigators (P.A. and J.Z.) and discrepancies in ratings or disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus with the third author (P.N.).

The risk of bias within each study was evaluated in accordance with the methods of the Cochrane Collaboration tool.¹⁹

Data Extraction

Data extracted from the selected articles included patient demographics, previous knee surgery, duration of symptoms, articular cartilage defect size, surgical technique, clinical outcome measures, radiological assessment, and treatment failures. Primary outcome measures were validated clinical scores (e.g., Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] or International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC]). Secondary outcome measures included failure rates and radiological outcome. Headline results of the individual studies were summarized and discussed according to the treatment techniques they compared (e.g., microfracture versus cartilage restorative techniques and other comparative studies).

Results

Overview of Literature Search Output

A total of 889 records from the PubMed database were identified ( Fig. 1 ). Of those 889 publications, 498 duplicate publications were removed and the remaining 391 publications were screened on the basis of abstract/full text review. The reviewer excluded 332 records based on the predefined exclusion/inclusion criteria.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart of the systematic literature search.

Most articles were excluded under an “other topic” category which included no cartilage defect or no cartilage repair at all, treatment with methods like mesenchymal stem cells with or without additional microfracture, bone marrow concentrate as cell source, injection of different substances, treatment with physical therapy, methods of rehabilitation, and OA treatment.

Of note, most of the excluded publications met several exclusion criteria. For example, studies on mesenchymal stem cell therapies or other treatments were usually small (<20 patients) and no Level 1 trials. Other more frequent reasons for exclusion were defect localization other than knee joint (n = 43) or follow-up less than 5 years (n = 25).

A total of 59 unique publications (including systematic reviews/meta-analyses) were selected for further evaluation by intensive full-text review. Of these, 50 publications were excluded based on the defined inclusion/exclusion criteria, leaving a total of 9 articles for inclusion: 6 RCTs and 3 systematic reviews/meta-analyses ( Fig. 1 ).

Two of the included articles were RCTs that compared first-generation ACI using a periosteal patch (ACI-P) to microfracture (MFx),^21,22 1 study compared third-generation matrix-associated ACI (M-ACI) to MFx,²³ and 2 studies evaluated osteochondral autograft transplantation (OAT) versus microfracture.^24,25 A comparison of OAT and second-generation, collagen membrane covered ACI (ACI-C) was covered in another study.²⁶ The 3 Level 1 systematic reviews/meta-analyses assessed the outcome of different cartilage repair procedures, that is, MFx, OAT, and various ACI methods, in randomized controlled trials.^27-29 No RCTs fulfilling the inclusion criteria for the current review were available on cartilage repair by means of bone marrow concentrate, mesenchymal stem cells, particulated juvenile allograft cartilage, or autologous minced cartilage.

For practicability reasons, the results described here refer to the 6 RCTs only. The systematic reviews/meta-analyses are referred to in the discussion section to support the conclusions drawn from the RCTs.

Patient Demographics and Baseline Characteristics

The 6 RCT articles included in this systematic review comprised 520 patients with a mean age ranging from 24.3 to 35.0 years. Follow-up periods ranged from 5 years up to a mean of 16 years. The duration of symptoms prior to cartilage repair varied widely from 2.6 months to 7.2 years. Mean defect sizes ranged from a mean of 2.4 to 5.1 cm². Trial and patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1 .

Table 1.

Trial Characteristics of the Included Studies.

Study	Treatment	Patients (n)	Patients Completed Follow-Up (n)	Follow-Up (Years)	Mean Age (Years)	Mean Defect Size (cm²)	Mean Duration of Symptoms (Months)	Mean Prior Surgeries (n)
Brittberg et al.²³	M-ACI	65	65	5	35^a	5.1	—	—
Brittberg et al.²³	MFx	63	59	5	34^a	4.9	—	—
Knutsen et al.²¹	ACI-P	40	40	15	33.3	5.1	36	1.6
Knutsen et al.²¹	MFx	40	38	15	31.1	4.5	36	1.4
Vanlauwe et al.²²	ACI-P	51	43	5	33.9^a	2.6 ^a	1.97 years^a	77%^a
Vanlauwe et al.²²	MFx	61	55	5	33.9^a	2.4 ^a	1.57 years^a	88%^a
Solheim et al.²⁴	OAT	20	—	16 (15-17)	31	3.4	52	—
Solheim et al.²⁴	MFx	20	—	16 (15-17)	35	3.6	58	—
Gudas et al.²⁵	OAT	30	28	10.4 (9-11)	24.3	2.80	21.3	—
Gudas et al.²⁵	MFx	30	29	10.4 (9-11)	24.3	2.77	21.3	—
Bentley et al.²⁶	ACI-C	58	53	min. 10 (10-12)	30.9	4.4 (1-10.5)	7.2 years	1.5
Bentley et al.²⁶	OAT	42	41	min. 10 (10-12)	31.6	4.0 (1-20)	7.2 years	1.5

MFx = microfracture; OAT = osteochondral autograft transplantation; ACI-P = periosteal autologous chondrocyte implantation; ACI-C = collagen-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation; M-ACI = matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation; min = minimum.

Numbers are given by Saris et al.³⁰

Risk of Bias

Figure 2 shows the potential risk of bias for the individual studies. All of the included studies presented Level I evidence, with a low risk of selection, attrition, reporting, or other biases. However, performance bias was potentially present in all included studies, due to the non-blinded nature of the various surgical techniques.

Figure 2.

Results of risk of bias assessment for individual trials. + = no bias assumed; – = bias cannot be excluded.

Furthermore, it was not possible to blind the patients to their interventions in studies that involved the use of 2-stage interventions (ACI) and 1-stage procedures (MFx or OAT). In 3 of 6 studies, the outcome assessors were not blinded to the study treatment,^21,23,26 in 1 study a blinded unbiased observer performed preoperative and follow-up examinations²⁵ and for the 2 remaining studies no information on assessor blinding was available. However, a potential detection bias could not be excluded as patient-reported outcome measures were used in all these non-blinded studies.

Clinical Scores

The results of the treatment group comparisons in clinical scores are summarized ( Table 2 ).

Table 2.

Clinical Outcome in the Included Studies.

Study	KOOS	IKDC	ICRS	Tegner	Lysholm	SF-36		EQ-5D-VAS	VAS Pain	Cincinnati	Stanmore-Bentley Score
Study	KOOS	IKDC	ICRS	Tegner	Lysholm	Physical	Mental	EQ-5D-VAS	VAS Pain	Cincinnati	Stanmore-Bentley Score
MFx vs. ACI
Brittberg et al.²³	↑ M-ACI^a	NS				↑ M-ACI	NS	↑ M-ACI		↑ M-ACI
Knutsen et al.²¹				NS	NS	NS			NS
Vanlauwe et al.²²	NS^b
MFx vs. OAT
Solheim et al.²⁴					↑ OAT
Gudas et al.²⁵			↑ OAT	↑ OAT
ACI vs. OAT
Bentley et al.²⁶										↑ ACI-C	NS

NS = no significant difference; ICRS = International Cartilage Repair Society; KOOS = Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; SF-36 = Short Form 36; IKDC = International Knee Documentation Committee; EQ 5D = European Quality of Life; VAS = visual analog scale; MFx = microfracture; OAT = osteochondral autograft transplantation; ACI = autologous chondrocyte implantation; ACI-C = collagen-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation; M-ACI = matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation.

Significant difference in co-primary endpoint of KOOS pain and function and activities of daily living.

For patients with symptom onset less than 3 years, the overall KOOS showed a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in favor of the ACI-P group.

In the 2 RCTs comparing MFx and OAT, OAT showed significantly better outcomes in the ICRS and Tegner scores after 10 years²⁵ as well as the Lysholm score after 16 years.²⁴ Both trials included patients with comparatively small cartilage defects (mean 2.8-3.6 cm²).

Two RCTs compared MFx and ACI-P.^21,22 Patients in the study conducted by Vanlauwe et al.²² had comparatively small defects (mean size of approximately 2.5 cm²), while patients in the trial reported by Knutsen et al.²¹ had larger defects (mean defect sizes of 4.5 and 5.1 cm² for MFx and ACI-P, respectively). There were no significant differences between repair modalities in overall KOOS after 5 years²² or Tegner, Lysholm, SF-36, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain after 15 years.²¹

However, Vanlauwe et al.²² reported a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in overall KOOS improvement in the ACI group over the MFx group at 60 months in a subgroup of patients with symptom onset less than 3 years (P = 0.026). Significant differences versus MFx were also observed in the pain and quality of life domains in this patient subgroup.

In contrast, significantly better outcomes for third-generation M-ACI compared with MFx have been reported by Brittberg et al. in patients with larger defects of approximately 5 cm².²³ In this study, M-ACI was shown to be superior to microfracture in the co-primary endpoint of improvement in KOOS pain and function after 5 years (P = 0.022) and also in the activities of daily living subscore (P = 0.007).

Furthermore, in the study by Bentley et al., ACI-C was shown to be superior to OAT in terms of the Cincinnati Score while no differences were observed in the Stanmore-Bentley score after a minimum follow-up of 10 years.²⁶ Mean defect sizes in this study were 4.4 and 4.0 cm², respectively.

Failure Rates

The majority of studies defined failure as a need for reoperation.^21-23,25,26 Additional criteria for graft failure such as clinically poor results with arthroscopic evidence of failure or <10% improvement in the KOOS pain subscale were also included in the failure definition of 2 studies.^23,26 Failure definitions and failure rates are summarized in Table 3 .

Table 3.

Failure Rates for Different Cartilage Repair Techniques in the Included Studies.

Study	Follow-Up(Years)	Treatment	Failure	Definition of Failure	Significant Difference
MFx vs. ACI
Brittberg et al.²³	5	M-ACI	1	Patient and physician global assessment result the same or worse than at baseline after week 24<10% improvement in the KOOS pain subscaleSurgical retreatment necessary	NS
Brittberg et al.²³	5	MFx	3		NS
Knutsen et al.²¹	15	ACI-P	17 (42.5%)	Reoperation because of symptoms resulting from a lack of healing of the treated defect. The need for shaving or trimming of a lesion was not considered a failure.	NS
Knutsen et al.²¹	15	MFx	13 (32.5%)		NS
Vanlauwe et al.²²	5	ACI-P	7 (13.7%)	Re-intervention affecting more than 20% of the graft area	NS(P = 0.561)
Vanlauwe et al.²²	5	MFx	10 (16.4%)	Re-intervention affecting more than 20% of the graft area	NS(P = 0.561)
MFx vs. OAT
Solheim et al.²⁴	16	OAT	1 (5%)	Only knee replacement procedures reported	-
Solheim et al.²⁴	16	MFx	3 (15%)	Only knee replacement procedures reported	-
Gudas et al.²⁵	10.4	OAT	7 (14%)	Reoperation due to symptoms to the primary defect	P < 0.05
Gudas et al.²⁵	10.4	MFx	11 (38%)	Reoperation due to symptoms to the primary defect	P < 0.05
ACI vs. OAT
Bentley et al.²⁶	min. 10	ACI-C	10 of 58 (17%)	Clinically poor results with arthroscopic evidence of failure of the graft or revision surgery to the defect of any kind	P < 0.001
Bentley et al.²⁶	min. 10	OAT	23 of 42 (55%)		P < 0.001

Bentley et al.²⁶ reported significantly less failures with ACI-C compared with OAT at a minimum of 10-year follow-up, 17% and 55%, respectively (P = 0.001), using a Kaplan-Meier worst case scenario comparison in which patients lost to follow-up were assumed to have been failures (5 of 58 in the ACI-C group and 1 of 42 in the OAT group). Gudas et al.²⁵ identified a significantly greater failure rate with microfracture (38%) compared with OAT (14%) (P < 0.05) at 10 years. Accordingly, Solheim et al.²⁴ reported more knee replacements with MFx (3 patients, 15%) than with OAT (1 patient, 5%) after 16 years, although the numbers were too low to draw any definitive conclusions (other treatment failures were not addressed in this article).

Comparing first-generation ACI-P and MFx, differences in failure rates were not statistically significant in the studies by Vanlauwe et al.²² and Knutsen et al.²¹ after 5 and 15 years, respectively. However, failure rates in the study by Knutsen et al.²¹ were nominally higher for ACI-P after 15 years (42.5% vs. 32.5%).

Very few treatment failures were observed in the study by Brittberg et al.²³ with only 1 failure in the M-ACI group and 3 failures in the MFx group during the follow-up period of 5 years.

Radiological Outcomes

Radiological outcomes of the studies included in our review are summarized in Table 4 . No patients showed evidence of OA at 3 years post-surgery in the cohort of patients reported by Gudas et al. However, at 10 years 48% of patients in the MFx group and 25% in the OAT group had developed degenerative changes, but these differences were not significant (P = 0.83).²¹ In the same study, significantly better Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) subscore results were observed with OAT for defect filling, integration to border zone, surface of repair tissue, subchondral lamina and bone as well as adhesions.

Table 4.

Imaging Outcomes for Different Cartilage Repair Techniques in the Included Studies.

Study	Treatment	Imaging	Outcome	Significant Difference
MFx vs. ACI
Brittberg et al.²³	M-ACI vs. MFx	MRI in 120 patients at year 5	Improvement in defect filling in both treatment groups	No difference
Knutsen et al.²¹	ACI-P vs. MFx	OA was assessed defined as Kellgren and Lawrence grade ≥2	ACI-P: 57% had signs of OAMFx: 48% had signs of OA	NS
Vanlauwe et al.²²	ACI-P vs. MFx	OA was assessed defined as Kellgren and Lawrence grade ≥2	4 of 49 patients (8%) had a Kellgren grade 2 score; there was no significant difference in the frequency of radiographic changes between treatment groups	NS
MFx vs. OAT
Gudas et al.²⁵	OAT vs. MFx	Assessment of MOCART score and Kellgren and Lawrence grade	MRI after 10 year performed in 17 MFx and 12 OAT patients. Significantly better MOCART subscore results with OAT for:• Defect filling• Integration to border zone• Surface of repair tissue• Subchondral lamina• Subchondral bone• Adhesions	P < 0.05
Kellgren and Lawrence grade:7 (25%) in the OAT and 14 (48%) in the MFx group had evidence of Kellgren and Lawrence grade I OA	NS (P = 0.083)

MFx = microfracture; OAT = osteochondral autograft transplantation; ACI-P = periosteal autologous chondrocyte implantation; M-ACI = matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation; NS = no significant difference; OA = osteoarthritis; MOCART = Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue.

Two studies compared ACI-P and MFx with regard to development of osteoarthritic changes over time. Vanlauwe et al. reported osteoarthritic changes in 8% of patients overall at the 5-year follow-up and no differences between the ACI-P or MFx treatment techniques.²² At a mean of 15 years postoperative, 57% of ACI-P patients and 48% of MFx patients had developed signs of OA in the study conducted by Knutsen et al.²¹ This difference however was not statistically significant.

In a study by Brittberg et al.,²³ magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation of structural repair was performed in 120 patients at year 5 in patients treated with either M-ACI or MFx. The MRI evaluation showed improvement in defect filling for both treatments; however, no statistically significant differences were noted between treatment groups.

Discussion

Only 9 studies at the highest level of evidence with a follow-up of at least 5 years could be identified in the field of knee cartilage repair and therefore the following discussion will also take into account data from additional clinical studies on the respective techniques. In 5 of 6 RCTs included in our review, microfracture was used as comparator and is discussed only in this context rather than separately as a repair option. No RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria for the current review were available on cartilage repair by means of bone marrow concentrate, mesenchymal stem cells, particulated juvenile allograft cartilage, or autologous minced cartilage.

Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Versus Microfracture

A long history of ACI products documented in a comprehensive series of published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical guidelines has demonstrated that ACI, and in particular M-ACI, is superior to MFx, particularly in larger lesions and in long-term clinical outcomes.^{16,27,29,31-35}

In the randomized Level 1 phase III study on M-ACI versus MFx for the treatment of large cartilage defects (5 cm²) included in our review, significantly better clinical results were reported for M-ACI after 2 and 5 years.^23,36 Similar results were reported by Basad et al.³⁷ for defect sizes of 4 to 10 cm². The superior efficacy of M-ACI in the treatment of larger defects (3-20 cm²) was also confirmed in a predictor analysis in one trial where a defect size >4 cm² was predictive for better outcome with M-ACI.³⁶

In a phase III clinical trial including a population with smaller defect size (1-4 cm²), non-inferiority, but not superiority, of the M-ACI product to MFx was demonstrated at 24 months.³⁸ Similar results were also found in other controlled clinical studies with a M-ACI product in smaller defects.^30,39,40 Only 1 Phase II RCT has demonstrated significant clinical benefits for M-ACI compared with MFx after 24 months in smaller defects.⁴¹ However, the small sample size with 21 patients in the M-ACI group and 9 patients in the MFx group limits the interpretation of these results. In a Level 1 RCT including 35 patients (18 M-ACI and 17 MFx), M-ACI had better structural outcomes than those who underwent MFx in chondral lesion with a mean size of 1.8 cm² at 1 to 6 years postoperatively. In the same study, both groups of patients showed significant clinical improvements at final follow-up compared with their preoperative status but M-ACI showed significant superiority at 4 years for the majority of the KOOS subscales and for the Tegner scale at 4 to 6 years. The responder rates at 6 years were 53% and 77% for MFx and M-ACI, respectively.⁴²

Long-term maintenance of significant improvements at up to 5 years and for more than 5 and 10 years after M-ACI/ACI has been reported in several clinical studies^17,40,43-55 and reviews.^28,56 While MFx is still considered a treatment option for smaller defects (<2-2.5 cm²), there is evidence from several clinical studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses that even with smaller and medium defect sizes, MFx loses its clinical efficacy over time.

A systematic review by Na and co-workers showed that significant clinical improvement was achieved after 5 or more years with both ACI and MFx, but the results after ACI-C and M-ACI were significantly better compared with MFx as determined by the KOOS ADL assessment, Tegner Activity Scale score, and IKDC objective and subjective scores.⁵⁷ This review found no significant difference in the treatment failure rate between these 2 methods. The review is in agreement with previous findings from a systematic review of 20 clinical studies (1,469 athletes) showing that patients treated with ACI reached the highest activity level when compared with other cartilage repair techniques, including MFx or mosaicplasty. A durability of up to 96% after ACI was observed as late as 9 years after surgery even under the high physical demands of professional football.⁵⁸ In a recently published randomized controlled trial (Level 1), 93.3% of patients were satisfied with M-ACI for relieving their pain at 10 years, with 83.3% satisfied with their ability to participate in sports and, therefore, the authors concluded that M-ACI provided high satisfaction levels and tissue durability beyond 10 years.⁵⁵ In contrast, 1 MFx study demonstrated that the rate of return-to-sports decreased from 80% at 2 years to 55% by the 6-year time point.⁵⁹ A systematic review showed a similar decline of functional knee results after MFx during a follow-up of 2 to 5 years.⁶⁰ In another prospective study, nearly half of the patients (50 of 110) treated with MFx had a poor outcome (knee replacement or Lysholm score below 64) at a median follow-up of 12 years, and 43 of 110 patients had 1 to 4 additional surgeries, including 7 knee replacements.⁶¹

In a meta-analysis including 3,894 patients comparing short- (1-4 years), medium- (5-9 years), and long-term (≥10 years) results of MFx, OAT, and ACI/M-ACI, best results concerning pain relief within the first 4 years were observed for MFx. However, and in contrast to ACI, MFx lost its ability of clinically relevant pain relief during mid-term follow-up, whereas even in the long-term, this was not the case with ACI.⁶² In this context, it should also be mentioned that persisting knee pain is considered to be a predictor for OA and an eventual joint prosthesis.^63,64 Against the background of the described relation between chronic pain and the development and progression of degenerative joint alterations, it is understandable that increasing rates of MFx treatment failures and OA regardless of lesion size beyond 5 years was a common observation in other studies.^16,65 In our systematic review, Gudas et al.²⁵ observed degenerative changes in 48% of patients in the MFx group (25% in the OAT group) and a significantly greater failure rate of 38% with MFx compared with OAT (14%) at 10 years. At a mean of 15 years of follow-up, 48% of MFx patients and 57% of ACI-P patients had developed signs of OA in the study conducted by Knutsen et al.²¹

Similar results have been reported in a Level 1 network meta-analysis and in another systematic review where significantly higher revision and failure rates were found at long-term follow-up for MFx and osteochondral autograft/mosaicplasty when compared with ACI-C/M-ACI.^27,29 Up to 5 years however, no significant differences in failure rates between ACI and MFx were reported^29,57,66,67 and also in the 2 studies with a follow-up of 5 years included in our systematic review, no differences in failure rates were observed between ACI and MFx.^22,23 For ACI-P however, despite a longer follow-up of 15 years, no differences in failure rates compared with MFx were reported.²¹

Together, these are the main reasons why many authors now recommend longer follow-up periods for cartilage clinical trials, as the therapeutic goal is not only the relief of acute pain and discomfort, but also the achievement of durable long-term results and the potential to prevent or at least delay the early onset of OA and knee arthroplasty. It is widely accepted that focal cartilage defects of the knee are a risk factor for the development of OA, and early joint replacement, which is increasingly discussed controversially, should be avoided as much as possible.^1,3,4,68-73 The improved long-term durability of M-ACI is why it is now considered economical despite the initially higher costs of 2 surgical interventions and the necessary cell cultivation.^74,75

On the other hand, ACI-P hardly plays any role in clinical practice anymore due to its higher surgical comorbidity and complication rates, such as periosteal hypertrophy.^4,75 Furthermore, the results of a meta-analysis performed by Deng et al.⁷⁶ indicated that M-ACI had significant better efficacy than ACI-P did. Accordingly, no difference was observed in the 2 studies investigating ACI-P versus MFx in our systematic review^21,22 (irrespective of defect size), while M-ACI has shown superior efficacy over MFx in various clinical scores as reported by Brittberg et al.²³ or recently by Dhillon et al.⁷⁷ (systematic review of Levels I-II trials).

It is also worth mentioning that patients undergoing ACI as second-line treatment after previously failed MFx have a significantly higher risk of treatment failure and worse subjective outcomes compared with patients undergoing primary ACI.^10,78 With respect to the described differences in mid- to long-term results of cartilage repair methods, these findings are an important consideration when discussing postoperative expectations with surgical candidates.⁶²

The reason underlying the inferior long-term results for MFx when compared with ACI is thought to relate to the poor tissue quality and degree of defect fill particularly in larger lesions.^4,79 However, Brittberg et al.²³ (as presented in this systematic review) did not observe any differences in defect filling between M-ACI and MFx after 5 years (mean defect size 5 cm²). In this context, it has been shown that filling of smaller, well-shouldered cartilage defects even with non-hyaline repair tissue still improves short-term function, while the histological repair tissue quality becomes more important long term for larger defects.^27,29,60,62 In a meta-analysis, MFx was found to produce primarily fibrocartilage repair tissue that matures differently from ACI tissue.⁸⁰ ACI repair tissue matures to become more hyaline-like (a process that takes up to 5 years)⁸¹ with increased stiffness, while the fibrocartilage formed after MFx can enlarge over time but lacks the maturation into cartilage with hyaline properties.

The formation of intralesional osteophytes via endochondral ossification (a process in which cartilaginous tissue is gradually replaced by bone) is another complication associated with bone marrow stimulation techniques. This process is accompanied by disruption, vascularization, elevation, and sclerosis of the subchondral bone as well as cyst formation resulting in a progressive thinning and degeneration of the covering cartilage over time, which probably explains the improved durability of ACI compared with MFx.^82,83

Several studies have shown that adverse bone formation occurs in up to 70% of all lesions treated by MFx and peaks between 4 and 5 years after treatment.^82,84 In a prospective study on MFx, subchondral bone overgrowth was observed in over 90% of treatment failure patients, with a risk of failure 10 times higher than in patients who showed no osseous overgrowth (P < 0.01).⁸⁵ Among the examined procedures (MFx, OAT, OCA, first-generation ACI) for the surgical treatment of cartilage defects of the knee covering a total of 47,207 cases from a large U.S. commercial insurance database, MFx presented the greatest risk of eventual conversion to total knee replacement (P < 0.0001).⁸⁶ Taken together, these results are in line with a recently published Level 1 meta-analysis by Zamborsky and Danisovic²⁸ of RCTs that ranked MFx as the procedure with the worst long-term clinical outcome compared with ACI/M-ACI and OAT.

Osteochondral Transfer Versus Microfracture or Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation

The 2 studies comparing OAT with MFx included in our systematic review with follow-up times of up to 17 years showed significantly better clinical results and lower failure rates for mosaicplasty in comparison with MFx for the treatment of chondral and osteochondral defects. One limitation of these studies is the smaller mean defect size (2.8 and 3.5 cm²).^24,25 Similar data on the comparison of OAT with MFx were published in a systematic review including 9 clinical studies with Level 1 or 2 evidence.⁸⁷

The prospective randomized Level 1 study by Bentley et al.²⁶ on mosaicplasty versus ACI included in this review showed significantly better results and lower failure rates (P < 0.001) for ACI-C over the 10-year study period (average defect size of approximately 4 cm² in both groups). Another more recent study on the long-term comparison of mosaicplasty and M-ACI showed significantly lower failure rates for M-ACI over the 12-year period (P = 0.016) in smaller lesions (2 cm² average). Patients with defects larger than 2 cm² that received mosaicplasty performed significantly worse in the Tegner Activity and objective IKDC scores than patients with smaller lesions, which was not the case in the M-ACI group.⁸⁸

In 2 systematic reviews at the highest level of evidence, significantly higher complication rates (including treatment failure) and reoperation rates were found for mosaicplasty long term (>10 years) compared with ACI/M-ACI.^27,29

Overall, OAT for smaller lesions of the femoral condyles generally leads to good clinical results even after longer periods of time and with the shortest rehabilitation phase compared with other methods, especially in high-impact sports.^13,84,89,90 However, increasing complication and failure rates have been reported for larger defects requiring the use of more than 2 cartilage-bone cylinders.^74,87,91 Failure to achieve ideal joint surface congruence, similar to an intra-articular fracture that heals with step formation, results in abnormal loads and hence in degenerative changes of the corresponding cartilage surface.^29,92

OAT has also proven to be problematic for various reasons in the treatment of patella defects and the tibial articular surfaces.^93-95 Methods such as mosaicplasty are therefore mainly recommended for the treatment of osteochondral defects of the femoral condyles that do not exceed a size of 2 to 3 cm².^4,87,89,91

Allogeneic cartilage-bone transfer has a wide range of indications and is often used in the United States as a salvage procedure for large osteochondral defects.⁷⁴ Early revisions are not uncommon as described in a systematic review showing an allograft failure rate of 18% and a reoperation rate of over 30% at a mean follow-up of 8.7 years.⁹⁵ A recently published retrospective study including 82 patients with ACI and 66 with osteochondral allograft transplantation (mean follow-up of 6.7 years) indicated that both techniques provided similar patient-reported outcomes with or without concomitant procedures for the treatment of symptomatic knee cartilage defects. However, the overall rate of failure, defined as graft failure with revision surgery and/or conversion to arthroplasty, was significantly greater in the allograft group (21% vs. 4%; P = 0.002), particularly for multifocal and condylar lesions.⁹⁶

The use of suitable allografts is limited by their limited availability (particularly in Europe) and the risk of disease transmission. Due to the invasiveness of the procedure, especially in the case of large lesions, the options for revision after allograft failure are limited.⁹⁷

Bone Marrow Concentrate, Mesenchymal Stem Cells, Particulated Juvenile Allograft Cartilage, and Minced Cartilage

As outlined in the method section, studies on techniques mentioned in the heading were usually small (<20 patients), with no Level 1 trials, or studies with a follow-up less than 5 years. Therefore, it is still unclear whether they are superior to bone marrow stimulation techniques in terms of their effectiveness and whether they can achieve similarly good results as ACI/M-ACI, especially with regard to larger defects and longer follow-up times.⁹⁸ As for all other cartilage repair procedures, results from prospective, high-quality studies with defined target indications and longer follow-up times are required, before they or other relatively new methods can also be subject to an evidence-based assessment and as a result may or may not be included in a corresponding treatment algorithm.²⁸

Conclusion

Different surgical procedures are available for the biologic reconstruction of localized full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee. Our systematic review including RCTs on the highest level of evidence with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up shows that clinically established restorative procedures (ACI-C, M-ACI, or OAT) are better suited to achieve good long-term clinical results with lower complication and failure rates than reparative procedures (microfracture), provided that the appropriate treatment indications including defect size of the respective restorative procedure are observed. In addition, ACI-C and M-ACI seem to be superior to OAT, especially in larger defects after longer follow-up periods.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-car-10.1177_19476035221129571 – Supplemental material for Biological Reconstruction of Localized Full-Thickness Cartilage Defects of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Level 1 Studies with a Minimum Follow-Up of 5 Years

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-car-10.1177_19476035221129571 for Biological Reconstruction of Localized Full-Thickness Cartilage Defects of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Level 1 Studies with a Minimum Follow-Up of 5 Years by Peter Angele, Johannes Zellner, Steffen Schröter, Johannes Flechtenmacher, Jürgen Fritz and Philipp Niemeyer in CARTILAGE

Footnotes

Acknowledgments and Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: P.N., Jürgen Fritz, and P.A.: consultant for TETEC, Aesculap.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

ORCID iD

Peter Angele

Supplementary material for this article is available on the Cartilage website at .

References

Everhart

Abouljoud

Kirven

Flanigan

DC.

Full-thickness cartilage defects are important independent predictive factors for progression to total knee arthroplasty in older adults with minimal to moderate osteoarthritis: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(1):56-63. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.01657.

Lacy

Cracchiolo

Goitz

Medial femoral condyle cartilage defect biomechanics: effect of obesity, defect size, and cartilage thickness. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(2):409-16. doi:10.1177/0363546515613517.

Sanders

Pareek

Obey

Johnson

Carey

Stuart

, et al. High rate of osteoarthritis after osteochondritis dissecans fragment excision compared with surgical restoration at a mean 16-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(8):1799-805. doi:10.1177/0363546517699846.

Niemeyer

Albrecht

Andereya

Angele

Ateschrang

Aurich

, et al. 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. 2016;23(3):426-35. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2016.02.001.

Gaissmaier

Fritz

Schewe

Weise

Mollenhauer

Aicher

Cartilage defects: epidemiology and natural history. Osteo Trauma Care. 2006;14(3):188-94. doi:10.1055/s-2006-942234.

Fickert

Aurich

Albrecht

Angele

Büchler

Dienst

, et al. [Biologic reconstruction of full sized cartilage defects of the hip: a guideline from the DGOU Group “clinical tissue regeneration” and the Hip Committee of the AGA]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2017;155(6):670-82. doi:10.1055/s-0043-116218.

Krishnan

Skinner

Bartlett

Carrington

Flanagan

Briggs

, et al. Who is the ideal candidate for autologous chondrocyte implantation? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(1):61-4. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.16796.

Pestka

Bode

Salzmann

Sudkamp

Niemeyer

Clinical outcome of autologous chondrocyte implantation for failed microfracture treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee joint. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(2):325-31. doi:10.1177/0363546511425651.

Minas

Gomoll

Rosenberger

Royce

Bryant

Increased failure rate of autologous chondrocyte implantation after previous treatment with marrow stimulation techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(5):902-8.

10.

Schuette

Kraeutler

Schrock

McCarty

EC.

Primary autologous chondrocyte implantation of the knee versus autologous chondrocyte implantation after failed marrow stimulation: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49:2536-41. doi:10.1177/0363546520968284.

11.

Heir

Nerhus

RÃtterud

LÃken

Ekeland

Engebretsen

, et al. Focal cartilage defects in the knee impair quality of life as much as severe osteoarthritis: a comparison of knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score in 4 patient categories scheduled for knee surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):231-7. doi:10.1177/0363546509352157.

12.

Moran

Pascual-Garrido

Chubinskaya

Potter

Warren

Cole

, et al. Restoration of articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(4):336-44. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01329.

13.

Redondo

Naveen

Liu

Tauro

Southworth

Cole

BJ.

Preservation of knee articular cartilage. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2018;26(4):e23-30. doi:10.1097/JSA.0000000000000226.

14.

Jungmann

Gersing

Baumann

Holwein

Braun

Neumann

, et al. Cartilage repair surgery prevents progression of knee degeneration. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27:3001-3013. doi:10.1007/s00167-018-5321-8.

15.

Ogura

Bryant

Mosier

Minas

Autologous chondrocyte implantation for bipolar chondral lesions in the tibiofemoral compartment. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(6):1371-81. doi:10.1177/0363546518756977.

16.

Goyal

Keyhani

Lee

Hui

JH.

Evidence-based status of microfracture technique: a systematic review of level I and II studies. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(9):1579-88. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2013.05.027.

17.

Kreuz

Kalkreuth

Niemeyer

Uhl

Erggelet

Long-term clinical and MRI results of matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte implantation for articular cartilage defects of the knee. Cartilage. 2019;10:305-13. doi:10.1177/1947603518756463.

18.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

Boutron

Hoffmann

Mulrow

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.

19.

Higgins

JPT

Altman

Gøtzsche

Jüni

Moher

Oxman

, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928.

20.

Burns

Rohrich

Chung

KC.

The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):305-10. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171.

21.

Knutsen

Drogset

Engebretsen

Grøntvedt

Ludvigsen

Løken

, et al. A randomized multicenter trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture: long-term follow-up at 14 to 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(16):1332-9. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.01208.

22.

Vanlauwe

Saris

Victor

Almqvist

Bellemans

Luyten

, et al. Five-year outcome of characterized chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture for symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee: early treatment matters. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(12):2566-74. doi:10.1177/0363546511422220.

23.

Brittberg

Recker

Ilgenfritz

Saris

DBF

, SUMMIT Extension Study Group. Matrix-applied characterized autologous cultured chondrocytes versus microfracture: five-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(6):1343-51. doi:10.1177/0363546518756976.

24.

Solheim

Hegna

Strand

Harlem

Inderhaug

Randomized study of long-term (15-17 years) outcome after microfracture versus mosaicplasty in knee articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(4):826-31. doi:10.1177/0363546517745281.

25.

Gudas

Gudaite

Pocius

Gudiene

Cekanauskas

Monastyreckiene

, et al. 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. 2012;40(11):2499-508. doi:10.1177/0363546512458763.

26.

Bentley

Biant

Vijayan

Macmull

Skinner

Carrington

RW.

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. 2012;94(4):504-9. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B4.27495.

27.

Devitt

Bell

Webster

Feller

Whitehead

TS.

Surgical treatments of cartilage defects of the knee: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Knee. 2017;24(3):508-17. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2016.12.002.

28.

Zamborsky

Danisovic

Surgical techniques for knee cartilage repair: an updated large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(3):845-58. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2019.11.096.

29.

Riboh

Cvetanovich

Cole

Yanke

AB.

Comparative efficacy of cartilage repair procedures in the knee: a network meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(12):3786-99. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4300-1.

30.

Saris

Vanlauwe

Victor

Haspl

Bohnsack

Fortems

, 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. doi:10.1177/0363546507311095.

31.

Knutsen

Drogset

Engebretsen

Grøntvedt

Isaksen

Ludvigsen

, et al. A randomized trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture. Findings at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(10):2105-12. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00003.

32.

Knutsen

Engebretsen

Ludvigsen

Drogset

Grøntvedt

Solheim

, et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture in the knee. A randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(3):455-64.

33.

Magnussen

Dunn

Carey

Spindler

KP.

Treatment of focal articular cartilage defects in the knee: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(4):952-62.

34.

Oussedik

Tsitskaris

Parker

Treatment of articular cartilage lesions of the knee by microfracture or autologous chondrocyte implantation: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):732-44. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.023.

35.

Solheim

Hegna

Inderhaug

Early determinants of long-term clinical outcome after cartilage repair surgery in the knee. J Orthop. 2018;15(1):222-5. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2018.01.021.

36.

Saris

Price

Widuchowski

Bertrand-Marchand

Caron

Drogset

, et al. Matrix-applied characterized autologous cultured chondrocytes versus microfracture: two-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(6):1384-94. doi:10.1177/0363546514528093.

37.

Basad

Ishaque

Bachmann

Stürz

Steinmeyer

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. 2010;18(4):519-27.

38.

Niemeyer

Laute

Zinser

Becher

Kolombe

Fay

, et al. A prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III noninferiority trial to compare the clinical efficacy of matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation with spheroid technology versus arthroscopic microfracture for cartilage defects of the knee. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(7):2325967119854442. doi:10.1177/2325967119854442.

39.

Kon

Gobbi

Filardo

Delcogliano

Zaffagnini

Marcacci

Arthroscopic second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture for chondral lesions of the knee: prospective nonrandomized study at 5 years. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(1):33-41. doi:10.1177/0363546508323256.

40.

Kon

Filardo

Berruto

Benazzo

Zanon

Della Villa

, et al. Articular cartilage treatment in high-level male soccer players: a prospective comparative study of arthroscopic second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture. Am J Sports Med. 20117;39(12):2549-57

41.

Crawford

DeBerardino

Williams

3rd . 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. 2012;94(11):979-89. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00533.

42.

Ibarra

Villalobos

Madrazo-Ibarra

Velasquillo

Martinez-Lopez

Izaguirre

, et al. Arthroscopic matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte transplantation versus microfracture: a 6-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(8):2165-76. doi:10.1177/03635465211010487.

43.

Ebert

Fallon

Wood

Janes

GC.

A prospective clinical and radiological evaluation at 5 years after arthroscopic matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(1):59-69. doi:10.1177/0363546516663493.

44.

Marlovits

Aldrian

Wondrasch

Zak

Albrecht

Welsch

, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes 5 years after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation in patients with symptomatic, traumatic chondral defects. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(10):2273-80. doi:10.1177/0363546512457008.

45.

Basad

Wissing

Fehrenbach

Rickert

Steinmeyer

Ishaque

Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) in the knee: clinical outcomes and challenges. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(12):3729-35. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3295-8.

46.

Filardo

Andriolo

Sessa

Vannini

Ferruzzi

Marcacci

, et al. Age is not a contraindication for cartilage surgery: a critical analysis of standardized outcomes at long-term follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(8):1822-8. doi:10.1177/0363546517695088.

47.

Kreuz

Muller

Freymann

Erggelet

Niemeyer

Kaps

, et al. Repair of focal cartilage defects with scaffold-assisted autologous chondrocyte grafts: clinical and biomechanical results 48 months after transplantation. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(8):1697-705. doi:10.1177/0363546511403279.

48.

Kon

Filardo

Gobbi

Berruto

Andriolo

Ferrua

, et al. Long-term results after hyaluronan-based MACT for the treatment of cartilage lesions of the patellofemoral joint. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(3):602-8. doi:10.1177/0363546515620194.

49.

Gille

Behrens

Schulz

Oheim

Kienast

Matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation: a clinical follow-up at 15 years. Cartilage. 2016;7(4):309-15. doi:10.1177/1947603516638901.

50.

Filardo

Kon

Andriolo

Di Matteo

Balboni

Marcacci

Clinical profiling in cartilage regeneration: prognostic factors for midterm results of matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(4):898-905. doi:10.1177/0363546513518552.

51.

Aldrian

Zak

Wondrasch

Albrecht

Stelzeneder

Binder

, et al. Clinical and radiological long-term outcomes after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte transplantation: a prospective follow-up at a minimum of 10 years. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(11):2680-8. doi:10.1177/0363546514548160.

52.

Brix

Stelzeneder

Chiari

Koller

Nehrer

Dorotka

, et al. Treatment of full-thickness chondral defects with Hyalograft C in the knee: long-term results. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(6):1426-32. doi:10.1177/0363546514526695.

53.

Nawaz

Bentley

Briggs

Carrington

RWJ

Skinner

Gallagher

, et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: mid-term to long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(10):824-30. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01695.

54.

Ogura

Mosier

Bryant

Minas

A 20-year follow-up after first-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(12):2751-61. doi:10.1177/0363546517716631.

55.

Ebert

Fallon

Ackland

Janes

Wood

DJ.

Minimum 10-year clinical and radiological outcomes of a randomized controlled trial evaluating 2 different approaches to full weightbearing after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(1):133-42. doi:10.1177/0363546519886548.

56.

Pareek

Carey

Reardon

Peterson

Stuart

Krych

. Long-term outcomes after autologous chondrocyte implantation: a systematic review at mean follow-up of 11.4 years. Cartilage. 2016;7(4):298-308. doi:10.1177/1947603516630786.

57.

Shi

Liu

Jia

Kong

Zhang

, et al. Is implantation of autologous chondrocytes superior to microfracture for articular-cartilage defects of the knee?: a systematic review of 5-year follow-up data. Int J Surg. 2019;68:56-62. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.06.007.

58.

Mithoefer

Della Villa

Return to sports after articular cartilage repair in the football (soccer) player. Cartilage. 2012;3(1 Suppl):57S-62S. doi:10.1177/1947603511410419.

59.

Gobbi

Nunag

Malinowski

Treatment of full thickness chondral lesions of the knee with microfracture in a group of athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(3):213-21. doi:10.1007/s00167-004-0499-3.

60.

Mithoefer

Gill

Cole

Williams

Mandelbaum

BR.

Clinical outcome and return to competition after microfracture in the athlete’s knee: an evidence-based systematic review. Cartilage. 2010;1(2):113-20. doi:10.1177/1947603510366576.

61.

Solheim

Hegna

Inderhaug

Oyen

Harlem

Strand

Results at 10-14 years after microfracture treatment of articular cartilage defects in the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(5):1587-93. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3443-1.

62.

Jones

Kelley

Arshi

McAllister

Fabricant

PD.

Comparative effectiveness of cartilage repair with respect to the minimal clinically important difference. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(13):3284-93. doi:10.1177/0363546518824552.

63.

Thorstensson

Andersson

Jonsson

Saxne

Petersson

IF.

Natural course of knee osteoarthritis in middle-aged subjects with knee pain: 12-year follow-up using clinical and radiographic criteria. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(12):1890-3. doi:10.1136/ard.2008.095158.

64.

Wang

Teichtahl

Abram

Hussain

Pelletier

Cicuttini

, et al. Knee pain as a predictor of structural progression over 4 years: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a prospective cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2018;20(1):250. doi:10.1186/s13075-018-1751-4.

65.

Kim

Vaidya

Lee

Park

, et al. Clinical and radiological changes after microfracture of knee chondral lesions in middle-aged Asian patients. Clin Orthop Surg. 2019;11(3):282-90. doi:10.4055/cios.2019.11.3.282.

66.

Andriolo

Merli

Filardo

Marcacci

Kon

Failure of autologous chondrocyte implantation. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2017;25(1):10-8. doi:10.1097/JSA.0000000000000137.

67.

Gou

Tseng

Wang

Chen

Shyu

Weng

, et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture in the knee: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(1):289-303. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2019.06.033.

68.

Ding

Cicuttini

Scott

Boon

Jones

Association of prevalent and incident knee cartilage defects with loss of tibial and patellar cartilage: a longitudinal study. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(12):3918-27. doi:10.1002/art.21474.

69.

Cicuttini

Ding

Wluka

Davis

Ebeling

Jones

Association of cartilage defects with loss of knee cartilage in healthy, middle-age adults: a prospective study. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(7):2033-9. doi:10.1002/art.21148.

70.

Roos

Arden

NK.

Strategies for the prevention of knee osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2016;12(2):92-101. doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2015.135.

71.

Guermazi

Hayashi

Roemer

Niu

Quinn

Crema

, et al. Brief Report: partial- and full-thickness focal cartilage defects contribute equally to development of new cartilage damage in knee osteoarthritis: the multicenter osteoarthritis study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(3):560-4. doi:10.1002/art.39970.

72.

Bayliss

Culliford

Monk

Glyn-Jones

Prieto-Alhambra

Judge

, et al. The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1424-30. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30059-4.

73.

Houck

Kraeutler

Belk

Frank

McCarty

Bravman

JT.

Do focal chondral defects of the knee increase the risk for progression to osteoarthritis?: a review of the literature. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(10):2325967118801931. doi:10.1177/2325967118801931.

74.

Everhart

Campbell

Abouljoud

Kirven

Flanigan

DC.

Cost-efficacy of knee cartilage defect treatments in the United States. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48:242-51. doi:10.1177/0363546519834557.

75.

Mistry

Connock

Pink

Shyangdan

Clar

Royle

, et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(6):1-294. doi:10.3310/hta21060.

76.

Deng

Jin

Zhao

Cartilage defect treatments: with or without cells? Mesenchymal stem cells or chondrocytes? Traditional or matrix-assisted? A systematic review and meta-analyses. Stem Cells Int. 2016;2016:9201492. doi:10.1155/2016/9201492.

77.

Dhillon

Decilveo

Kraeutler

Belk

McCulloch

Scillia

AJ.

Third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation (Cells cultured within collagen membrane) versus microfracture for focal chondral defects of the knee joint: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials at minimum two-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2022;38:2579-86. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2022.02.011.

78.

Minas

Von Keudell

Bryant

Gomoll

AH.

The John Insall Award: a minimum 10-year outcome study of autologous chondrocyte implantation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):41-51. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3146-9.

79.

Brown

Potter

Marx

Wickiewicz

Warren

. Magnetic resonance imaging appearance of cartilage repair in the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004(422):214-23.

80.

DiBartola

Everhart

Magnussen

Carey

Brophy

Schmitt

, et al. Correlation between histological outcome and surgical cartilage repair technique in the knee: a meta-analysis. Knee. 2016;23(3):344-9. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2016.01.017.

81.

Paatela

Vasara

Nurmi

Kautiainen

Jurvelin

Kiviranta

. Biomechanical changes of repair tissue after autologous chondrocyte implantation at long-term follow-up. Cartilage. 201;13:1085S-91S. doi:10.1177/1947603520921433.

82.

Gelse

Beyer

Welsch

Blanke

Endochondral ossification in cartilage repair tissue hampers bone marrow stimulation techniques. Rheumatology. 2012; S3:005.

83.

Welch

Mandelbaum

Tom

Autologous chondrocyte implantation: past, present, and future. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2016;24(2):85-91. doi:10.1097/JSA.0000000000000115.

84.

Zellner

Krutsch

Pfeifer

Koch

Nerlich

Angele

Autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage repair: current perspectives. Orthop Res Rev. 2015;7:149-58.

85.

Mithoefer

Venugopal

Manaqibwala

Incidence, degree, and clinical effect of subchondral bone overgrowth after microfracture in the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(8):2057-63. doi:10.1177/0363546516645514.

86.

Frank

McCormick

Rosas

Amoo-Achampong

Erickson

Bach

Jr , et al. Reoperation rates after cartilage restoration procedures in the knee: analysis of a large US commercial database. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2018;47(6):1-15. doi:10.12788/ajo.2018.0040.

87.

Lynch

Patel

Benedick

Amin

Jones

Miniaci

Systematic review of autogenous osteochondral transplant outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):746-54. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.018.

88.

Zaffagnini

Boffa

Andriolo

Reale

Busacca

Di Martino

, et al. Mosaicplasty versus matrix-assisted autolougous chondrocyte transplantation for knee cartilage defects: a long-term clinical and imaging evaluation. Appl Sci. 2020;10:4615.

89.

Dekker

Aman

DePhillipo

Dickens

Anz

LaPrade

RF.

Chondral lesions of the knee: an evidence-based approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(7):629-45. doi:10.2106/JBJS.20.01161.

90.

Krych

Pareek

King

Johnson

Stuart

Williams

3rd . Return to sport after the surgical management of articular cartilage lesions in the knee: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(10):3186-96. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4262-3.

91.

Solheim

Hegna

Oyen

Harlem

Strand

Results at 10 to 14 years after osteochondral autografting (mosaicplasty) in articular cartilage defects in the knee. Knee. 2013;20(4):287-90. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2013.01.001.

92.

Bowland

Ingham

Jennings

Fisher

Review of the biomechanics and biotribology of osteochondral grafts used for surgical interventions in the knee. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2015;229(12):879-88. doi:10.1177/0954411915615470.

93.

Bentley

Biant

Carrington

Akmal

Goldberg

Williams

, et al. A prospective, randomised comparison of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for osteochondral defects in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(2):223-30.

94.

Assenmacher

Pareek

Reardon

Macalena

Stuart

Krych

. Long-term outcomes after osteochondral allograft: a systematic review at long-term follow-up of 12.3 years. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(10):2160-8. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.04.020.

95.

Familiari

Cinque

Chahla

Godin

Olesen

Moatshe

, et al. Clinical outcomes and failure rates of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(14):3541-9. doi:10.1177/0363546517732531.

96.

Matthews

Brutico

Abraham

Heard

Tucker

Tjoumakaris

, et al. Differences in clinical and functional outcomes between osteochondral allograft transplantation and autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of focal articular cartilage defects. Orthop J Sports Med. 2022;10(2):23259671211058425. doi:10.1177/23259671211058425.

97.

Cavendish

Everhart

Peters

Sommerfeldt

Flanigan

DC.

Osteochondral allograft transplantation for knee cartilage and osteochondral defects: a review of indications, technique, rehabilitation, and outcomes. JBJS Rev. 2019;7(6):e7. doi:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.18.00123.

98.

Seow

Yasui

Hurley

Ross

Murawski

Shimozono

, et al. Extracellular matrix cartilage allograft and particulate cartilage allograft for osteochondral lesions of the knee and ankle joints: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(7):1758-66. doi:10.1177/0363546517717494.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.44 MB