Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis provides better outcomes in comparison to autologous minced cartilage implantation in the repair of knee chondral defects.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1002/ksa.12387
Peter Behrendt, Lena Eggeling, Anja Lindner, Fidelius von Rehlingen-Prinz, Matthias Krause, Michael Hoffmann, Karl-Heinz Frosch, Ralph Akoto, Justus Gille
{"title":"Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis provides better outcomes in comparison to autologous minced cartilage implantation in the repair of knee chondral defects.","authors":"Peter Behrendt, Lena Eggeling, Anja Lindner, Fidelius von Rehlingen-Prinz, Matthias Krause, Michael Hoffmann, Karl-Heinz Frosch, Ralph Akoto, Justus Gille","doi":"10.1002/ksa.12387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In symptomatic mid-sized focal chondral defects, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) and minced cartilage implantation (MCI) offer two versatile treatment options. This study aimed to conduct a matched-patient analysis of patient-reported outcome measures to compare these two surgical treatment methods for focal chondral defects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>At the first centre, patients underwent a single-stage procedure in which autologous cartilage was hand-minced, implanted into the defect and fixed with fibrin glue. At the second centre, patients underwent AMIC, which was fixed in place with fibrin glue. All patients were seen 2-4 years postoperatively. Postoperative outcomes were assessed using the visual analogue scale for pain (VAS), the Lysholm score and the five domains of the knee osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). Patients from each surgical centre were matched by age, sex, defect size and defect localisation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 48 patients from two surgical centres (24 from each site) were matched for sex, age (MCI 30.3 ± 14.9 years vs. AMIC 30.8 ± 13.7 years) and defect size (MCI 2.49 ± 1.5 cm<sup>2</sup> vs. AMIC 2.65 ± 1.1 cm<sup>2</sup>). Significantly better scores in the AMIC cohort were noted for VAS (p = 0.004), Lysholm (p = 0.043) and the KOOS subscales for pain (p = 0.016) and quality of life (p = 0.036). There was a significantly greater proportion of positive responders for Lysholm in the AMIC group (92%) compared with the MCI group (64%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AMIC procedure delivers superior patient outcomes compared with hand-minced autologous cartilage implantation. These are mid-term outcomes, with follow-up between 2 and 4 years.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12387","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: In symptomatic mid-sized focal chondral defects, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) and minced cartilage implantation (MCI) offer two versatile treatment options. This study aimed to conduct a matched-patient analysis of patient-reported outcome measures to compare these two surgical treatment methods for focal chondral defects.

Methods: At the first centre, patients underwent a single-stage procedure in which autologous cartilage was hand-minced, implanted into the defect and fixed with fibrin glue. At the second centre, patients underwent AMIC, which was fixed in place with fibrin glue. All patients were seen 2-4 years postoperatively. Postoperative outcomes were assessed using the visual analogue scale for pain (VAS), the Lysholm score and the five domains of the knee osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). Patients from each surgical centre were matched by age, sex, defect size and defect localisation.

Results: In total, 48 patients from two surgical centres (24 from each site) were matched for sex, age (MCI 30.3 ± 14.9 years vs. AMIC 30.8 ± 13.7 years) and defect size (MCI 2.49 ± 1.5 cm2 vs. AMIC 2.65 ± 1.1 cm2). Significantly better scores in the AMIC cohort were noted for VAS (p = 0.004), Lysholm (p = 0.043) and the KOOS subscales for pain (p = 0.016) and quality of life (p = 0.036). There was a significantly greater proportion of positive responders for Lysholm in the AMIC group (92%) compared with the MCI group (64%).

Conclusions: The AMIC procedure delivers superior patient outcomes compared with hand-minced autologous cartilage implantation. These are mid-term outcomes, with follow-up between 2 and 4 years.

Level of evidence: Level III.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在膝关节软骨缺损修复中,自体基质诱导软骨生成与自体碎软骨植入相比,效果更好。
目的:对于有症状的中型局灶性软骨缺损,自体基质诱导软骨生成术(AMIC)和碎软骨植入术(MCI)提供了两种通用的治疗方案。本研究旨在对患者报告的结果进行配对分析,以比较这两种治疗局灶性软骨缺损的手术方法:方法:在第一个中心,患者接受单阶段手术,将自体软骨手工切碎,植入缺损处,并用纤维蛋白胶固定。在第二个中心,患者接受了AMIC手术,并用纤维蛋白胶固定。所有患者均在术后 2-4 年进行了复查。术后疗效采用疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)、Lysholm评分和膝关节骨性关节炎疗效评分(KOOS)的五个方面进行评估。每个手术中心的患者按年龄、性别、缺损大小和缺损定位进行配对:来自两个手术中心的 48 名患者(每个中心 24 名)在性别、年龄(MCI 30.3 ± 14.9 岁 vs AMIC 30.8 ± 13.7 岁)和缺损大小(MCI 2.49 ± 1.5 平方厘米 vs AMIC 2.65 ± 1.1 平方厘米)方面均匹配。AMIC 组群的 VAS(p = 0.004)、Lysholm(p = 0.043)和 KOOS 疼痛分量表(p = 0.016)和生活质量(p = 0.036)得分明显更高。与 MCI 组(64%)相比,AMIC 组的 Lysholm 阳性反应者比例明显更高(92%):结论:与手剁自体软骨植入术相比,AMIC手术能为患者带来更好的疗效。这些都是中期结果,随访时间为2至4年:证据等级:三级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
18.40%
发文量
418
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Few other areas of orthopedic surgery and traumatology have undergone such a dramatic evolution in the last 10 years as knee surgery, arthroscopy and sports traumatology. Ranked among the top 33% of journals in both Orthopedics and Sports Sciences, the goal of this European journal is to publish papers about innovative knee surgery, sports trauma surgery and arthroscopy. Each issue features a series of peer-reviewed articles that deal with diagnosis and management and with basic research. Each issue also contains at least one review article about an important clinical problem. Case presentations or short notes about technical innovations are also accepted for publication. The articles cover all aspects of knee surgery and all types of sports trauma; in addition, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention, and all types of arthroscopy (not only the knee but also the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, ankle, etc.) are addressed. Articles on new diagnostic techniques such as MRI and ultrasound and high-quality articles about the biomechanics of joints, muscles and tendons are included. Although this is largely a clinical journal, it is also open to basic research with clinical relevance. Because the journal is supported by a distinguished European Editorial Board, assisted by an international Advisory Board, you can be assured that the journal maintains the highest standards. Official Clinical Journal of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA).
期刊最新文献
Lost in quantity: The urgent need for more quality in orthopaedic research. The transepicondylar distance is a reliable and easily measured parameter for estimating femoral cartilage surface area using MRI. High accuracy in lower limb alignment analysis using convolutional neural networks, with improvements needed for joint-level metrics. No difference in clinical outcome between quadriceps tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without bone block: Results from the Danish Knee Ligament Registry. Virtual reality-based therapy after anterior cruciate ligament injury effectively reduces pain and improves knee function, movement patterns, and dynamic balance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1