Carboplasty, a Simple Tibial Marrow Technique for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial

Background

Carboplasty is a new minimally invasive technique for knee osteoarthritis (OA) that consists of injecting tibial marrow aspirate into the bone-cartilage interface as well as intra-articularly.

Purpose

To compare the clinical and imaging outcomes, as well as the safety, of carboplasty for symptomatic knee OA in a placebo-controlled trial.

Study Design

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods

The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare carboplasty with placebo for the treatment of symptomatic knee OA. Patients who had failed medical treatment and had bone edema on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to carboplasty or placebo. The primary outcome of the study was the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for the knee at 1 year (scores range from 0 to 10, with a higher score indicating worse pain). Secondary outcomes were the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), treatment responder rate (based on achieving the minimal clinically important difference of the NPRS), MRI bone edema reduction, and treatment safety.

Results

In total, 50 patients (25 carboplasty vs 25 placebo) were enrolled and followed up with for an average of 18 months (range, 14-24 months). The average NPRS at baseline decreased from 7.1 ± 0.9 to 2.9 ± 2.1 (P < .001) at 1 year in the carboplasty group and from 7.7 ± 0.9 to 4.9 ± 2.2 (P < .001) in the placebo group. On average, patients after carboplasty improved 60% from their initial NPRS, and patients after placebo improved 37% (P = .003). Patients had a statistically significantly greater improvement from baseline in all KOOS subscales in the carboplasty group compared with the placebo group (P < .001). The responder rates were 96% for carboplasty and 76% for placebo (P = .098). Bone edema was reduced in 72% of patients in the carboplasty group and 44% of patients in the placebo group (P = .045). Neither group had adverse events related to treatment.

Conclusion

Carboplasty resulted in greater pain reduction, a significantly greater improvement in all KOOS subscales, and a similar safety profile compared with placebo in patients with symptomatic knee OA and bone edema.

Registration

ISRCTN69838191 (ISRCT Registry).

"Back Rx, a personalized mobile phone application for discogenic chronic low back pain: a prospective pilot study"

Background

Intervertebral disc pathology is the most common identifiable cause of chronic lower back pain (CLBP). There are limited conservative alternatives to treat discogenic axial CLBP. Back Rx is a mobile application (app) developed to treat patients with this condition, following the Back Rx exercise program, assisted by a virtual coach.

Methods

Patients 18 to 65 years of age, with axial CLBP (more than 3 months), and evidence of lumbar disc pathology by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were enrolled to the study. Patients’ symptomatology was prospectively evaluated at baseline and after 3 months of using the Back Rx app. The main outcome of the study was back pain evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Secondary outcomes were the patient's functionality, the weekly pain medication intake, the patients’ adherence to the app, and the patients´ satisfaction rate.

Results

Seventy-five patients with CLBP were enrolled in the study. All patients had a statistically significant improvement from baseline to final follow-up in the average VAS scores, and the functionality evaluations. Average VAS scores decreased from 5.17 ± 2.1 at baseline to 3.8 ± 2.6 at final follow-up (P = 0.016). Patients showed a significant decrease in the number of pain medications taken during a week (P = 0.001). Overall compliance with the app was 52%, and 65% of the patients rated the overall experience as good or excellent.

Conclusion

The Back Rx app decreased pain and increased function in patients with discogenic axial CLBP compared to their baseline status. Further measures are needed to increase patients' compliance with the app and the Back Rx program.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered in 2/2/2017 NCT03040310 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05883-9.

Arthroscopic Matrix-Encapsulated Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation: A Pilot Multicenter Investigation in Latin America

Objective. To evaluate minimum biosecurity parameters (MBP) for arthroscopic matrix-encapsulated autologous chondrocyte implantation (AMECI) based on patients' clinical outcomes, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T2-mapping, Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score, and International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) second-look arthroscopic evaluation, laying the basis for a future multicenter study. Design. Pilot clinical study. We analyzed the logistics to perform AMECI to treat focal chondral lesions in different hospitals following strict biosecurity parameters related to tissue and construct transportation, chondrocyte isolation, and cell expansion. Patient progress was analyzed with patient-reported outcome measures, MRI T2-mapping, MOCART, and ICRS arthroscopic second-look evaluation. Results. Thirty-five lesions in 30 patients treated in 7 different hospitals were evaluated. Cell viability before implantation was >90%. Cell viability in construct remnants was 87% ± 11% at 24 hours, 75% ± 17.1% at 48 hours, and 60% ± 8% at 72 hours after implantation. Mean final follow-up was 37 months (12-72 months). Patients showed statistically significant improvement in all clinical scores and MOCART evaluations. MRI T2-mapping evaluation showed significant decrease in relaxation time from 61.2 ± 14.3 to 42.9 ± 7.2 ms (P < 0.05). Arthroscopic second-look evaluation showed grade II "near normal" tissue in 83% of patients. Two treatment failures were documented. Conclusions. It was feasible to perform AMECI in 7 different institutions in a large metropolitan area following our biosecurity measures without any implant-related complication. Treated patients showed improvement in clinical, MRI T2-mapping, and MOCART scores, as well as a low failure rate and a favorable ICRS arthroscopic evaluation at a mid-term follow-up. Level of Evidence. 2b.

Arthroscopic Matrix-Assisted Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation Versus Microfracture: A 6-Year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Few randomized controlled trials with a midterm follow-up have compared matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) with microfracture (MFx) for knee cartilage lesions.

PURPOSE

To compare the structural, clinical, and safety outcomes at midterm follow-up of MACT versus MFx for treating symptomatic knee cartilage lesions.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients aged between 18 and 50 years, with 1- to 4-cm² International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade III to IV knee chondral lesions, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the MACT and MFx treatment groups. A sequential prospective evaluation was performed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T2 mapping, the MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) score, second-look arthroscopic surgery, patient-reported outcome measures, the responder rate (based on achieving the minimal clinically important difference for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] pain and KOOS Sport/Recreation), adverse events, and treatment failure (defined as a reoperation because of symptoms caused by the primary defect and the detachment or absence of >50% of the repaired tissue during revision surgery).

RESULTS

Overall, 35 patients (18 MACT and 17 MFx) with a mean chondral lesion size of 1.8 ± 0.8 cm² (range, 1-4 cm²) were followed up to a mean of 6 years postoperatively (range, 4-9 years). MACT demonstrated significantly better structural outcomes than MFx at 1 to 6 years postoperatively. At final follow-up, the MRI T2 mapping values of the repaired tissue were 37.7 ± 8.5 ms for MACT versus 46.4 ± 8.5 ms for MFx (P = .003), while the MOCART scores were 59.4 ± 17.3 and 42.4 ± 16.3, respectively (P = .006). More than 50% defect filling was seen in 95% of patients at 2 years and 82% at 6 years in the MACT group and in 67% at 2 years and 53% at 6 years in the MFx group. The second-look ICRS scores at 1 year were 10.7 ± 1.3 for MACT and 9.0 ± 1.8 for MFx (P = .001). Both groups showed significant clinical improvements at 6 years postoperatively compared with their preoperative status. Significant differences favoring the MACT group were observed at 2 years on the KOOS Activities of Daily Living (P = .043), at 4 years on all KOOS subscales (except Symptoms; P < .05) and the Tegner scale (P = .008), and at 6 years on the Tegner scale (P = .010). The responder rates at 6 years were 53% and 77% for MFx and MACT, respectively. There were no reported treatment failures after MACT; the failure rate was 8.3% in the MFx group. Neither group had serious adverse events related to treatment.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent MACT had better structural outcomes than those who underwent MFx at 1 to 6 years postoperatively. Both groups of patients showed significant clinical improvements at final follow-up compared with their preoperative status. MACT showed superiority at 4 years for the majority of the KOOS subscales and for the Tegner scale at 4 to 6 years. The MACT group also had a higher responder rate and lower failure rate at final follow-up.

REGISTRATION

NCT01947374 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).