Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Using the Original Periosteum-Cover Technique versus Matrix-Associated Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation

Zeifang, Felix; Oberle, Doris; Nierhoff, C.; Richter, Wiltrud; Moradi, Babak; Schmitt, Holger

doi:10.1177/0363546509351499

Cited by 222 publications

(207 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

194

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(Appendix 2). However, findings from the studies also showed no difference in patient-reported outcome scores between matrix-assisted chondrocyte transplantation and autologous chondrocytes transplantation [3,10,14,23,44].…”

Section: Studies Comparing Microfracture Chondrocyte Transplantationmentioning

confidence: 95%

What Is the Effect of Matrices on Cartilage Repair? A Systematic Review

Wylie

Hartley

Kapron

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Articular cartilage has minimal endogenous ability to undergo repair. Multiple chondral restoration strategies have been attempted with varied results. Questions/purposes The purpose of our review was to determine: (1) Does articular chondrocyte transplantation or matrix-assisted articular chondrocyte transplantation provide better patient-reported outcomes scores, MRI morphologic measurements, or histologic quality of repair tissue compared with microfracture in prospective comparative studies of articular cartilage repair; and (2) which available matrices for matrix-assisted articular chondrocyte transplantation show the best patient-reported outcomes scores, MRI morphologic measurements, or histologic quality of repair tissue? Methods We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, and MEDLINE from March 2004 to February 2014 using keywords determined to be important for articular cartilage repair, including ''cartilage'', ''chondral'', ''cell source'', ''chondrocyte'', ''matrix'', ''augment'', ''articular'', ''joint'', ''repair'', ''treatment'', ''regeneration'', and ''restoration'' to find articles related to cell-based articular cartilage repair of the knee. The articles were reviewed by two authors (JDW, MKH), our study exclusion criteria were applied, and articles were determined to be relevant (or not) to the research questions. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MIN-ORS) scale was used to judge the quality of nonrandomized manuscripts used in this review and the Jadad score was used to judge the quality of randomized trials. Seventeen articles were reviewed for the first research question and 83 articles were reviewed in the second research question from 301 articles identified in the original systematic search. The average MINORS score was 9.9 (62%) for noncomparative studies and 16

show abstract

Section: Studies Comparing Microfracture Chondrocyte Transplantationmentioning

confidence: 95%

What Is the Effect of Matrices on Cartilage Repair? A Systematic Review

Wylie

Hartley

Kapron

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This series had an average age of 29.3 years (Zeifang et al, 2010). At 24 months, this rise declined slightly in the conventional method to 19 points above baseline and remained stable in the refined method at 25 points above baseline (Zeifang et al, 2010). This compares to our rise above a baseline IKDC of 50.5 by 20 points at 12 months, 20 points at 24 months, and 21 points at 30 months (Fig 48).…”

Section: Role Of Weight-bearingmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…However, Knutsen et al found no significant clinical or radiographic difference between microfracture and ACI at 60 months utilizing four clinical outcome scoring systems and 2 radiologic outcome systems (Knutsen et al,2007). Zeifang et al (2010) in comparison of conventional methods of ACI with refined methods of ACI for treatment of femoral chondral lesions found an increase from a baseline IKDC (51.1) by 21 points and 25 points respectively. This series had an average age of 29.3 years (Zeifang et al, 2010).…”

Section: Role Of Weight-bearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zeifang et al (2010) in comparison of conventional methods of ACI with refined methods of ACI for treatment of femoral chondral lesions found an increase from a baseline IKDC (51.1) by 21 points and 25 points respectively. This series had an average age of 29.3 years (Zeifang et al, 2010). At 24 months, this rise declined slightly in the conventional method to 19 points above baseline and remained stable in the refined method at 25 points above baseline (Zeifang et al, 2010).…”

Section: Role Of Weight-bearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This compares to our rise above a baseline IKDC of 50.5 by 20 points at 12 months, 20 points at 24 months, and 21 points at 30 months (Fig 48). Of note, our patient group has a mean age of 47.1 years and included patients with multiple chondral lesions, while Zeifang et al (2010) evaluated isolated defects of the femoral condyle. Our clinical results indicate that the regenerated tissue is resilient and coincide with histological results suggesting that this technique produces hyaline cartilage.…”

Section: Role Of Weight-bearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations