微骨折、自体基质诱导软骨生成、骨软骨自体移植物移植和自体软骨细胞植入治疗膝关节软骨缺损:随机对照试验的系统综述和网络荟萃分析。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Efort Open Reviews Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1530/EOR-23-0089
Silvia Valisena, Benjamin Azogui, Rémy S Nizard, Philippe M Tscholl, Etienne Cavaignac, Pierre-Alban Bouché, Didier Hannouche
{"title":"微骨折、自体基质诱导软骨生成、骨软骨自体移植物移植和自体软骨细胞植入治疗膝关节软骨缺损:随机对照试验的系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Silvia Valisena, Benjamin Azogui, Rémy S Nizard, Philippe M Tscholl, Etienne Cavaignac, Pierre-Alban Bouché, Didier Hannouche","doi":"10.1530/EOR-23-0089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite the publication of several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is not clear which technique for the treatment of focal chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee grants the best clinical outcome. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of microfractures (MF), autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC), osteochondral autograft transplantation (OCT) at short (< 1 year), intermediate (1-5 years) and long-term (> 5 years).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out an NMA with Bayesian random-effect model, according to PRISMA guidelines. The search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, from inception to November 2022. The eligibilities were randomized controlled trials on patients with knee chondral and osteochondral defects, undergoing microfractures, OCT, AMIC, ACI, without restrictions for prior or concomitant surgery on ligaments, menisci or limb alignment, prior surgery for fixation or ablation of osteochondritis dissecans fragments, and prior cartilage procedures as microfractures, drilling, abrasion, or debridement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen RCTs were included. No difference among treatments was shown in the pooled comparison of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at any timepoint. Safety data were not available for all trials due to the heterogeneity of reporting, but chondrospheres seemed to have lower failure and reoperation rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This NMA showed no difference for PROMs with any technique. The lower failure and reoperation rates with chondrospheres must be interpreted with caution since adverse event data was heterogenous among trials. The standardization of the efficacy and safety outcome measures for future trials on knee cartilage repair and regeneration is necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":48598,"journal":{"name":"Efort Open Reviews","volume":"9 8","pages":"785-795"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11370723/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Microfractures, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, osteochondral autograft transplantation and autologous chondrocyte implantation for knee chondral defects: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Silvia Valisena, Benjamin Azogui, Rémy S Nizard, Philippe M Tscholl, Etienne Cavaignac, Pierre-Alban Bouché, Didier Hannouche\",\"doi\":\"10.1530/EOR-23-0089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite the publication of several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is not clear which technique for the treatment of focal chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee grants the best clinical outcome. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of microfractures (MF), autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC), osteochondral autograft transplantation (OCT) at short (< 1 year), intermediate (1-5 years) and long-term (> 5 years).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out an NMA with Bayesian random-effect model, according to PRISMA guidelines. The search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, from inception to November 2022. The eligibilities were randomized controlled trials on patients with knee chondral and osteochondral defects, undergoing microfractures, OCT, AMIC, ACI, without restrictions for prior or concomitant surgery on ligaments, menisci or limb alignment, prior surgery for fixation or ablation of osteochondritis dissecans fragments, and prior cartilage procedures as microfractures, drilling, abrasion, or debridement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen RCTs were included. No difference among treatments was shown in the pooled comparison of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at any timepoint. Safety data were not available for all trials due to the heterogeneity of reporting, but chondrospheres seemed to have lower failure and reoperation rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This NMA showed no difference for PROMs with any technique. The lower failure and reoperation rates with chondrospheres must be interpreted with caution since adverse event data was heterogenous among trials. The standardization of the efficacy and safety outcome measures for future trials on knee cartilage repair and regeneration is necessary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Efort Open Reviews\",\"volume\":\"9 8\",\"pages\":\"785-795\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11370723/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Efort Open Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0089\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Efort Open Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0089","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

摘要

目的:尽管已公布了多项随机对照试验(RCT),但治疗膝关节局灶性软骨和骨软骨缺损的哪种技术能带来最佳临床疗效仍不明确。本网络荟萃分析(NMA)旨在比较微骨折(MF)、自体软骨细胞植入(ACI)、自体基质诱导软骨生成(AMIC)、骨软骨自体移植(OCT)在短期(<1年)、中期(1-5年)和长期(>5年)的疗效和安全性:根据 PRISMA 指南,我们采用贝叶斯随机效应模型进行了 NMA 分析。从开始到 2022 年 11 月,我们在 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Web of Science、CENTRAL、CINAHL、SPORTDiscus、clinicaltrials.gov 和 WHO ICTRP 中进行了检索。研究对象为接受微骨折、OCT、AMIC、ACI治疗的膝关节软骨和骨软骨缺损患者的随机对照试验,不限制之前或同时接受过韧带、半月板或肢体对位手术,之前接受过骨软骨炎碎片固定或消融手术,以及之前接受过微骨折、钻孔、磨损或清创等软骨手术:结果:共纳入19项研究性试验。在任何时间点的患者报告结果指标(PROMs)的汇总比较中,各治疗方法均无差异。由于报告的异质性,并非所有试验都提供了安全性数据,但软骨球的失败率和再手术率似乎较低:该NMA显示,任何技术的PROM都没有差异。由于各试验的不良事件数据不尽相同,因此必须谨慎解释软骨球较低的失败率和再手术率。有必要对未来膝关节软骨修复和再生试验的疗效和安全性结果指标进行标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Microfractures, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, osteochondral autograft transplantation and autologous chondrocyte implantation for knee chondral defects: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Purpose: Despite the publication of several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is not clear which technique for the treatment of focal chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee grants the best clinical outcome. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of microfractures (MF), autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC), osteochondral autograft transplantation (OCT) at short (< 1 year), intermediate (1-5 years) and long-term (> 5 years).

Methods: We carried out an NMA with Bayesian random-effect model, according to PRISMA guidelines. The search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, from inception to November 2022. The eligibilities were randomized controlled trials on patients with knee chondral and osteochondral defects, undergoing microfractures, OCT, AMIC, ACI, without restrictions for prior or concomitant surgery on ligaments, menisci or limb alignment, prior surgery for fixation or ablation of osteochondritis dissecans fragments, and prior cartilage procedures as microfractures, drilling, abrasion, or debridement.

Results: Nineteen RCTs were included. No difference among treatments was shown in the pooled comparison of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at any timepoint. Safety data were not available for all trials due to the heterogeneity of reporting, but chondrospheres seemed to have lower failure and reoperation rates.

Conclusion: This NMA showed no difference for PROMs with any technique. The lower failure and reoperation rates with chondrospheres must be interpreted with caution since adverse event data was heterogenous among trials. The standardization of the efficacy and safety outcome measures for future trials on knee cartilage repair and regeneration is necessary.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Efort Open Reviews
Efort Open Reviews Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: EFORT Open Reviews publishes high-quality instructional review articles across the whole field of orthopaedics and traumatology. Commissioned, peer-reviewed articles from international experts summarize current knowledge and practice in orthopaedics, with the aim of providing systematic coverage of the field. All articles undergo rigorous scientific editing to ensure the highest standards of accuracy and clarity. This continuously published online journal is fully open access and will provide integrated CME. It is an authoritative resource for educating trainees and supports practising orthopaedic surgeons in keeping informed about the latest clinical and scientific advances. One print issue containing a selection of papers from the journal will be published each year to coincide with the EFORT Annual Congress. EFORT Open Reviews is the official journal of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) and is published in partnership with The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.
期刊最新文献
Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in arthroplasty - a narrative review of how many doses are optimal. Biological strategies in rotator cuff repair: a clinical application and molecular background. Diagnostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and albumin-to-globulin ratio for periprosthetic joint infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The role of miRNAs as biomarkers in heterotopic ossification. Fixation of tibial plateau fracture - risk factors for developing infection: a narrative review.
×
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