Good clinical results but moderate osseointegration and defect filling of a cell-free multi-layered nano-composite scaffold for treatment of osteochondral lesions of the knee

Mathis, Dominic T.; Kaelin, Raphael; Rasch, Helmut; Arnold, Markus; Hirschmann, Michael T.

doi:10.1007/s00167-017-4638-z

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(94 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A significant improvement ( p < 0.05) was also reported comparing data at 6 and 12 months follow up (measured by IKDC) in one study (6.25%) [20]. Eleven studies (68.75%) [19,20,21,22,24,25,27,28,30,31,32] collected Tegner score data at one year after surgery, of which only seven (43.75%) [20,21,22,24,25,27,28] showed a significant improvement ( p < 0.05), while four studies (25%) [19,30,31,32] showed similar or inferior score at follow-up with respect to pre-operative value.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…The initial search resulted in 2,247 articles, of which 16 articles were selected based on the eligibility criteria (Figure 1). Patient characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1 [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Of the 16 studies, 15 [17,18,19,20,21,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] (93.75%) were case series (Level IV) and only one [22] (6.25%) a comparative study (Level III).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only four studies [23,26,29,31] (25%) reported a follow-up longer than 24 months and only two studies [23,27] (12.5%) reported a post-operative histological evaluation. Almost all the articles reported clinical data using Tegner score (15/16–93.75%) [15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30] or International Knee Documentation Committee score (IKDC) (14/16–87.5%) [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,29]. Other reported clinical scores were Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), EuroQol-visual analog scales (EQ-VAS), Cincinnati, and Lysholm [17,18,19,30,32].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirteen studies (81.25%) [17,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,30,31,32] showed a clinical significant improvement (IKDC, Lysholm and KOOS) at 12 months follow-up in comparison with the pre-operative value ( p < 0.05). Only one study (6.25%) reported no clinical significant improvement [18] ( p > 0.05).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

MaioRegen Osteochondral Substitute for the Treatment of Knee Defects: A Systematic Review of the Literature

D’Ambrosi

Valli

Luca

et al. 2019

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study aims to investigate the clinical and radiological efficacy of three-dimensional acellular scaffolds (MaioRegen) in restoring osteochondral knee defects. Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for articles in which patients were treated with MaioRegen for osteochondral knee defects. Results: A total of 471 patients were included in the study (mean age 34.07 ± 5.28 years). The treatment involved 500 lesions divided as follows: 202 (40.4%) medial femoral condyles, 107 (21.4%) lateral femoral condyles, 28 (5.6%) tibial plateaus, 46 (9.2%) trochleas, 74 (14.8%) patellas, and 43 (8.6%) unspecified femoral condyles. Mean lesion size was 3.6 ± 0.85 cm2. Only four studies reported a follow-up longer than 24 months. Significant clinical improvement has been reported in almost all studies with further improvement up to 5 years after surgery. A total of 59 complications were reported of which 52 (11.1%) experienced minor complications and 7 (1.48%) major complications. A total of 16 (3.39%) failures were reported. Conclusion: This systematic review describes the current available evidence for the treatment of osteochondral knee defects with MaioRegen Osteochondral substitute reporting promising satisfactory and reliable results at mid-term follow-up. A low rate of complications and failure was reported, confirming the safety of this scaffold. Considering the low level of evidence of the study included in the review, this data does not support the superiority of the Maioregen in terms of clinical improvement at follow-up compared to conservative treatment or other cartilage techniques.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

MaioRegen Osteochondral Substitute for the Treatment of Knee Defects: A Systematic Review of the Literature

D’Ambrosi

Valli

Luca

et al. 2019

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The surface of the implants was intact but the cartilage quality was not good as revealed by the T2 mapping of the implanted area and the surrounding healthy cartilage. Mathis et al [59] (2018) analyzed the results of a cellfree multi-layered nanocomposite MaioRegen  scaffold for the treatment of OC lesions (mean size 1.0-3.5 cm 2 ) in 14 patients with a mean age of 33.1 ± 10.7 years. Although the clinical results were encouraging, MRI showed a very poor integration (86% showed a minor or poor filling) at 1 year.…”

Section: Scaffoldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances and future trends in articular cartilage repair

Goyal¹

2020

JASSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hyaline cartilage is an absolute necessity for a painless and a fully functional joint. A chondral or an osteochondral injury that doesn’t heal or doesn’t undergo a timely repair, eventually lead to arthritis. Many surgical options have been advocated and practiced in last three decades to treat the chondral and the osteochondral lesions. While some of the techniques are now available with the long term results, many techniques have evolved further to produce better results and lesser complications. Newer technologies have also been developed and they are looking promising. In 2020, it is timely to do a literature review of all the techniques suggested and practiced in last three decades and analyze their current status. It is also prudent to envisage, what can we expect in near future from the recent technologies on cartilage repair. The purpose of this paper is to update about the recent status of the established procedures and to review the future trends in cartilage repair.

show abstract

A Comprehensive Review of Stem Cells for Cartilage Regeneration in Osteoarthritis

Gauthaman

Memić

Budd

et al. 2018

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osteoarthritis (OA) is an age related joint disease associated with degeneration and loss of articular cartilage. Consequently, OA patients suffer from chronic joint pain and disability. Weight bearing joints and joints that undergo repetitive stress and excessive 'wear and tear' are particularly prone to developing OA. Cartilage has a poor regenerative capacity and current pharmacological agents only provide symptomatic pain relief. OA patients that respond poorly to conventional therapies are ultimately treated with surgical procedures to promote cartilage repair by implantation of artificial joint structures (arthroplasty) or total joint replacement (TJR). In the last two decades, stem cells derived from various tissues with varying differentiation and tissue regeneration potential have been used for the treatment of OA either alone or in combination with natural or synthetic scaffolds to aid cartilage repair. Although stem cells can be differentiated into chondrocytes in vitro or aid cartilage regeneration in vivo, their potential for OA management remains limited as cartilage regenerated by stem cells fails to fully recapitulate the structural and biomechanical properties of the native tissue. Efficient tissue regeneration remains elusive despite the simple design of cartilage, which unlike most other tissues is avascular and aneural, consisting of a single cell type. In this article, we have comprehensively reviewed the types of stem cells that have been proposed or tested for the management of OA, their potential efficacy as well as their limitations. We also touch on the role of biomaterials in cartilage tissue engineering and examine the prospects for their use in cell-based therapies.

show abstract

Good clinical results but moderate osseointegration and defect filling of a cell-free multi-layered nano-composite scaffold for treatment of osteochondral lesions of the knee

Abstract: Case series, Level IV.

Cited by 15 publications

References 62 publications

MaioRegen Osteochondral Substitute for the Treatment of Knee Defects: A Systematic Review of the Literature

MaioRegen Osteochondral Substitute for the Treatment of Knee Defects: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Recent advances and future trends in articular cartilage repair

A Comprehensive Review of Stem Cells for Cartilage Regeneration in Osteoarthritis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About