Hydrogel‐based and spheroid‐based autologous chondrocyte implantation of the knee show similar 2‐year functional outcomes: An analysis based on the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU)

Abstract

PurposeTo compare short‐term patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) of two contemporary matrix‐associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (M‐ACI) products for the treatment of large articular cartilage defects of the knee.MethodsA retrospective, registry‐based, matched‐pair analysis was performed, comparing PRO of patients undergoing isolated M‐ACI with either Spherox™, a spheroid‐based ACI (Sb‐ACI), or NOVOCART™ Inject, a hydrogel‐based ACI product (Hb‐ACI), for a focal full‐thickness cartilage defect of the knee ≥4 cm2. Matching parameters included age, sex, body mass index, defect size, defect localization, symptom duration and previous surgeries. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score were obtained up to the 24‐month follow‐up. The total KOOS response rate and percentage of patients attaining a substantial clinical benefit (SCB) in KOOS subscores were calculated.ResultsA total of 45 patients per group were matched. The response rate after 24 months was not significantly different between the groups (Sb‐ACI 64.4% vs. Hb‐ACI 82.2%, p = 0.057). The number of patients with a SCB at 24 months was not significantly different in any KOOS subscore, despite significantly higher improvement of the total KOOS (14.8 ± 16.2 vs. 21.5 ± 15.4, p = 0.047) and KOOS pain in the Hb‐ACI group (12.2 ± 18.6 vs. 20.6 ± 19.1, p = 0.037). The IKDC score in the Hb‐ACI group was significantly higher at the 12‐ and 24‐month follow‐up (60.7 ± 20.2 vs. 70.9 ± 18.0, p = 0.013).ConclusionThe response rate and number of patients achieving an SCB were not significantly different between patients treated with Sb‐ACI or Hb‐ACI. Both procedures can achieve favourable 2‐year PRO. Hb‐ACI was associated with better PRO between 1 and 2 years postoperatively; however, the clinical relevance of this benefit is yet to be proven.Level of EvidenceIII, Retrospective comparative study.