Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes After Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis Versus Microfracture of the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes After Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis Versus Microfracture of the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up
Do you wish to request the book?
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes After Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis Versus Microfracture of the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes After Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis Versus Microfracture of the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up
2020
Overview
Background:
Microfracture (MFx) is the most common procedure for treating chondral lesions in the knee; however, initial improvements decline after 2 years. Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) may overcome this shortcoming by combining MFx with collagen scaffolds. However, the outcomes of AMIC and MFx in the knee have not been compared.
Purpose:
To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of AMIC and MFx over a minimum 2-year follow-up.
Study Design:
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods:
A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases identified studies of patients who underwent AMIC or MFx and that reported validated clinical outcome measure and/or radiological evaluation findings at a follow-up of ≥2 years. There were 2 reviewers who performed study selection, a risk of bias assessment, and data extraction.
Results:
Overall, 29 studies were included in this systematic review. The mean improvement on the Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and visual analog scale for pain did not differ significantly between the 2 procedures. The mean improvement on the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score was significantly greater in the AMIC (45.9 [95% CI, 36.2-55.5]) than in the MFx (27.2 [95% CI, 23.3-31.1]) group (P < .001). In addition, the mean magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score was significantly higher in the AMIC (69.3 [95% CI, 55.1-83.5]) versus MFx (41.0 [95% CI, 27.3-54.7]) group (P = .005), and the mean adequate defect filling rate on magnetic resonance imaging scans was significantly better in the AMIC (77.3% [95% CI, 66.7%-87.9%]) versus MFx (47.9% [95% CI, 29.2%-66.6%]) group (P = .008) (odds ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.33]).
Conclusion:
No significant differences in clinical outcomes, except for the IKDC subjective score, were found between the AMIC and MFx groups. Greater improvement in IKDC subjective scores and magnetic resonance imaging findings were seen in patients treated with AMIC compared with MFx at a minimum 2-year follow-up.
Publisher
SAGE Publications,Sage Publications Ltd,SAGE Publishing
