A histological comparison of the repair tissue formed when using either Chondrogide® or periosteum during autologous chondrocyte implantation

McCarthy, Helen; Roberts, Sally

doi:10.1016/j.joca.2013.10.004

Cited by 68 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prospective comparative studies between autologous chondrocytes transplantation and matrix-assisted chondrocyte transplantation showed more hyaline-like tissue in the matrix-assisted group (p = 0.01) [25] Step' MACI = matrixassisted chondrocyte implantation; ACI = autologous chondrocyte implantation; NT = natural tissue. (Appendix 2).…”

Section: Studies Comparing Microfracture Chondrocyte Transplantationmentioning

confidence: 97%

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: 97%

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

“…The mean O'Driscoll score was 15.1 AE 3.7 (range, [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] in the Cartipatch 1 group and 18.5 AE 2.5 (range, [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] in the mosaicplasty group, yielding a significant 3.3-point difference in favor of mosaicplasty (p ¼ 0.02). The O'Driscoll score was not significantly different between the groups with defects <3.5 cm 2 or !3.5 cm 2 (p ¼ 0.43 and p ¼ 0.28).…”

Section: Histologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Full recovery of the donor site seems uncommon, but the potential impact of the residual abnormalities on knee function are unclear. [17][18][19][20] Studies of joints used to harvest cells for implantation in a different joint showed short-and medium-term decreases in donor-joint functional scores. 18,21,22 No studies specifically designed to compare adverse events associated with each type of procedure are available.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Third‐generation autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for knee cartilage injury: 2‐year randomized trial

Clavé

Potel

Servien

et al. 2016

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous surgical techniques have been developed to treat osteochondral defects of the knee. A study reported encouraging outcomes of third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation achieved using the solid agarose-alginate scaffold Cartipatch 1 . Whether this scaffold is better than conventional techniques remains unclear. This multicenter randomized controlled trial compared 2-year functional outcomes (IKDC score) after Cartipatch 1 versus mosaicplasty in patients with isolated symptomatic femoral chondral defects (ICRS III and IV) measuring 2.5-7.5 cm 2 . In addition, a histological evaluation based on the O'Driscoll score was performed after 2 years. We needed 76 patients to demonstrate an at least 10-point subjective IKDC score difference with a ¼ 5% and 90% power. During the enrolment period, we were able to include 55 patients, 30 of them were allocated at random to Cartipatch 1 and 25 to mosaicplasty. After 2 years, eight patients had been lost to follow-up, six in the Cartipatch 1 group, and two in the mosaicplasty group. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were not significantly different. The mean IKDC score and score improvement after 2 years were respectively 73.7 AE 20.1 and 31.8 AE 20.8 with Cartipatch 1 and 81.5 AE 16.4 and 44.4 AE 15.2 with mosaicplasty. The 12.6-point absolute difference in favor of mosaicplasty is statistically significant. Twelve adverse events were recorded in the Cartipatch 1 group against six in the mosaicplasty group. After 2 years, functional outcomes were significantly worse after Cartipatch 1 treatment compared to mosaicplasty for isolated focal osteochondral defects of the femur. ß

show abstract

“…For cartilage repair tissue, there have been many studies assessing the collagen [28][29][30] but a very limited number of studies assessing proteoglycans and GAGs. Proteoglycans, with their associated highly anionic GAGs, are key players in a range of cartilage functions including tissue compressibility, tissue remodelling, up-take of proteins, intracellular signalling and cell movement 31 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A case study: Glycosaminoglycan profiles of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) tissue improve as the tissue matures

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A histological comparison of the repair tissue formed when using either Chondrogide® or periosteum during autologous chondrocyte implantation

Abstract: This study demonstrates a significantly better quality of repair tissue formed with ACI-C compared with ACI-P. Hence Chondrogide(®) is perhaps a better alternative to periosteum during ACI.

Cited by 68 publications

References 45 publications

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

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

Third‐generation autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for knee cartilage injury: 2‐year randomized trial

A case study: Glycosaminoglycan profiles of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) tissue improve as the tissue matures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About