Microfracture versus Enhanced Microfracture Techniques in Knee Cartilage Restoration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Does scaffold enhancement show significant superiority over microfracture alone for treating knee chondral defects? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

PURPOSE

Chondral and osteochondral lesions in the knee are common conditions that significantly impair individuals' well-being and can lead to osteoarthritis, imposing substantial burdens on healthcare systems. The limited natural healing capacity of articular cartilage necessitates innovative treatment strategies. Microfracture (MF) is a widely used technique for knee chondral defects, but its long-term efficacy is often inadequate. Although recent randomised controlled trials have compared microfractures with scaffold-enhanced therapies, a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis are lacking.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE databases following PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing microfractures alone to matrix-induced chondrogenesis for knee chondral defects with at least a 12-month follow-up. Ten randomised controlled trials conducted between 2013 and 2024, enroling 378 patients, were included.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis showed no significant superiority of scaffolds over MF (p > 0.05) in International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome, Visual Analog Scale, and Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue scores at 12 and 24 months. However, individual studies suggested the potential benefits of scaffolds, especially in long-term outcomes. Clinical improvements from MF typically decline after 2-3 years, underscoring the need for long-term follow-up in future research.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis shows no significant difference between MF and MF with scaffold in treating knee cartilage defects, though some long-term RCTs demonstrate statistically significant differences. The absence of a universally accepted algorithm for analysing knee chondral defects limits this study. Establishing reliable guidelines and standardised study protocols is essential to improve long-term patient outcomes and the quality of future papers.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate versus Human Umbilical Cord Blood-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Combined Cartilage Regeneration Procedure in Patients Undergoing High Tibial Osteotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and objectives: Cartilage regeneration using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has been attempted to improve articular cartilage regeneration in varus knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergoing high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and human umbilical cord blood-derived MSCs (hUCB-MSCs) have been reported to be effective. However, whether BMAC is superior to hUCB-MSCs remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the clinical efficacy of cartilage repair procedures with BMAC or hUCB-MSCs in patients undergoing HTO. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted using three global databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, for studies in which the clinical outcomes after BMAC or hUCB-MSCs were used in patients undergoing HTO for varus knee OA. Data extraction, quality control, and meta-analysis were performed. To compare the clinical efficacy of BMAC and hUCB-MSCs, reported clinical outcome assessments and second-look arthroscopic findings were analyzed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The present review included seven studies of 499 patients who received either BMAC (BMAC group, n = 169) or hUCB-MSCs (hUCB-MSC group, n = 330). Improved clinical outcomes were found in both BMAC and hUCB-MSC groups; however, a significant difference was not observed between procedures (International Knee Documentation Committee score; p = 0.91, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index; p = 0.05, Knee Society Score (KSS) Pain; p = 0.85, KSS Function; p = 0.37). On second-look arthroscopy, the hUCB-MSC group showed better International Cartilage Repair Society Cartilage Repair Assessment grade compared with the BMAC group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Both BMAC and hUCB-MSCs with HTO improved clinical outcomes in varus knee OA patients, and there was no difference in clinical outcomes between them. However, hUCB-MSCs were more effective in articular cartilage regeneration than BMAC augmentation.

Clinical and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcomes After Microfracture Treatment With and Without Augmentation for Focal Chondral Lesions in the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Focal cartilage lesions represent a common source of knee pain and disability, with the potential for the development and progression of osteoarthritis. Currently, microfracture (MFx) represents the most utilized first-line surgical treatment for small, focal chondral lesions. Recent investigations have examined methods of overcoming the limitations of MFx utilizing various augmentation techniques.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing isolated MFx versus MFx augmented with orthobiologics or scaffolds for focal chondral defects of the knee.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify studies evaluating outcomes and adverse events in patients undergoing isolated MFx versus augmented MFx for focal chondral defects in the knee from 1945 to June 1, 2021. Data were extracted from each article that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes reported in a minimum of 3 studies.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were identified, utilizing 7 different types of injectable augmentation regimens and 5 different scaffolding regimens. Across the 14 studies, a total of 744 patients were included. The mean patient age was 46.8 years (range, 34-58 years), and 58.3% (n = 434/744) of patients were women. The mean final follow-up time was 26.7 months (range, 12-60 months). The mean chondral defect size ranged from 1.3 to 4.8 cm². A post hoc analysis comparing mean improvement in postoperative outcomes scores compared with preoperative values found no significant differences in the improvement in the visual analog scale (VAS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores between patients undergoing isolated MFx and those undergoing MFx + augmentation. Patients undergoing MFx + augmentation reported significantly greater improvements in the Lysholm score and postoperative MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) scores compared with the isolated MFx group.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing combined MFx + augmentation reported significant improvements in mean Lysholm and MOCART scores, without significant improvements in VAS, IKDC, or WOMAC scores when compared with patients undergoing isolated MFx.

Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis is effective for focal chondral defects of the knee

Focal chondral defects of the knee are common and their management is challenging. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis (AMIC) for focal chondral defects of the knee. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted (according to the 2020 PRISMA statement) to investigate the efficacy of AMIC in improving symptoms and to compare AMIC versus microfracture (MFx). In January 2022, the following databases were accessed: Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Embase. No time constrain was used for the search. All the clinical trials investigating AMIC and/or those comparing AMIC versus MFx for focal chondral defects of the knee were accessed. Only studies published in peer reviewed journals were considered. Studies which investigated other locations of the defects rather than knee were not eligible, nor those reporting data form mixed locations. Studies which reported data on revision settings, as well as those investigating efficacy on kissing lesions or multiple locations, were not suitable. The mean difference (MD) and odd ratio (OR) effect measure were used for continuous and binary data, respectively. Data from 18 studies (548 patients) were retrieved with a mean follow-up of 39.9 ± 26.5 months. The mean defect size was 3.2 ± 1.0 cm². The visual analogue scale (VAS) decreased of − 3.9/10 (95% confidence interval (CI) − 4.0874 to -3.7126), the Tegner Activity Scale increased of + 0.8/10 (95% CI 0.6595 to 0.9405). The Lysholm Knee Scoring System increased of + 28.9/100 (95% CI 26.8716 to 29.1284), as did the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) + 33.6/100 (95% CI 32.5800 to 34.6200). At last follow-up no patient showed signs of hypertrophy. 4.3% (9 of 210) of patients underwent revision procedures. The rate of failure was 3.8% (9 of 236). Compared to MFx, AMIC demonstrated lower VAS score (MD: − 1.01; 95% CI − 1.97 to 0.05), greater IKDC (MD: 11.80; 95% CI 6.65 to 16.94), and lower rate of revision (OR: 0.16; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.44). AMIC is effective for focal chondral defects of the knee. Furthermore, AMIC evidenced greater IKDC, along with a lower value of VAS and rate of revision compared to MFx.