Increased Failure Rate of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation after Previous Treatment with Marrow Stimulation Techniques

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 902-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Minas ◽  
Andreas H. Gomoll ◽  
Ralf Rosenberger ◽  
Ronald O. Royce ◽  
Tim Bryant
Keyword(s):  
Failure Rate ◽  
Cartilage Repair ◽  
Subchondral Bone ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Prior Treatment ◽  
Cartilage Defects ◽  
Persistent Symptoms ◽  
Marrow Stimulation ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte

Background Marrow stimulation techniques such as drilling or microfracture are first-line treatment options for symptomatic cartilage defects. Common knowledge holds that these treatments do not compromise subsequent cartilage repair procedures with autologous chondrocyte implantation. Hypothesis Cartilage defects pretreated with marrow stimulation techniques will have an increased failure rate. Study Design Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods The first 321 consecutive patients treated at one institution with autologous chondrocyte implantation for full-thickness cartilage defects that reached more than 2 years of follow-up were evaluated by prospectively collected data. Patients were grouped based on whether they had undergone prior treatment with a marrow stimulation technique. Outcomes were classified as complete failure if more than 25% of a grafted defect area had to be removed in later procedures because of persistent symptoms. Results There were 522 defects in 321 patients (325 joints) treated with autologous chondrocyte implantation. On average, there were 1.7 lesions per patient. Of these joints, 111 had previously undergone surgery that penetrated the subchondral bone; 214 joints had no prior treatment that affected the subchondral bone and served as controls. Within the marrow stimulation group, there were 29 (26%) failures, compared with 17 (8%) failures in the control group. Conclusion Defects that had prior treatment affecting the subchondral bone failed at a rate 3 times that of nontreated defects. The failure rates for drilling (28%), abrasion arthroplasty (27%), and microfracture (20%) were not significantly different, possibly because of the lower number of microfracture patients in this cohort (25 of 110 marrow-stimulation procedures). The data demonstrate that marrow stimulation techniques have a strong negative effect on subsequent cartilage repair with autologous chondrocyte implantation and therefore should be used judiciously in larger cartilage defects that could require future treatment with autologous chondrocyte implantation.

scholarly journals A Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Noninferiority Trial to Compare the Clinical Efficacy of Matrix-Associated Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation With Spheroid Technology Versus Arthroscopic Microfracture for Cartilage Defects of the Knee

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. 232596711985444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Niemeyer ◽  
Volker Laute ◽  
Wolfgang Zinser ◽  
Christoph Becher ◽  
Thomas Kolombe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
Cartilage Repair ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Statistical Hypothesis ◽  
Cartilage Defects ◽  
Koos Score ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte

Background:Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and microfracture are established treatments for large, full-thickness cartilage defects, but there is still a need to expand the clinical and health economic knowledge of these procedures.Purpose:To confirm the noninferiority of ACI compared with microfracture.Study Design:Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.Methods:Patients were randomized to be treated with matrix-associated ACI using spheroid technology (n = 52) or microfracture (n = 50). Both procedures followed standard methods. Patients were assessed by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) scoring system, Bern score, modified Lysholm score, International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) rating (histological and immunochemical scoring after rebiopsy 24 months after implantation), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) examination form. The main assessments were conducted 24 months after study treatment.Results:In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, the overall KOOS score for both ACI and microfracture yielded a statistically significant improvement relative to baseline. According to the between-group analysis, ACI passed the test of noninferiority compared with microfracture; thus, the primary goal of the study was achieved. The KOOS subscores yielded the same qualitative results as the overall KOOS score (ie, for each of these, noninferiority was demonstrated), and in 1 case (Activities of Daily Living subscore), the threshold for superiority was passed. The subgroup analyses did not yield any clear evidence of an association between treatment effect and any of the categories investigated (age, diagnosis, defect localization, sex). A histological analysis of biopsies from 16 patients (ACI: n = 9; microfracture: n = 7) suggested a better quality of repair in the patients treated with ACI.Conclusion:The efficacy of both ACI and microfracture was demonstrated with respect to both functional outcomes and morphological repair. The primary analysis confirmed the statistical hypothesis of the noninferiority of ACI, even for relatively small cartilage defects (1-4 cm2) treated in this study, the indication for which microfracture is generally accepted as the standard of care. ACI showed significant superiority in the KOOS subscores of Activities of Daily Living at 24 months and Knee-related Quality of Life at 12 months.Registration:NCT01222559 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

scholarly journals Evolution of Autologous Chondrocyte Repair and Comparison to Other Cartilage Repair Techniques

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashvin K. Dewan ◽  
Matthew A. Gibson ◽  
Jennifer H. Elisseeff ◽  
Michael E. Trice
Keyword(s):  
Cartilage Repair ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Cartilage Defects ◽  
Chondral Defects ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Osteochondral Grafting ◽  
And Cartilage ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte ◽  
Repair Techniques

Articular cartilage defects have been addressed using microfracture, abrasion chondroplasty, or osteochondral grafting, but these strategies do not generate tissue that adequately recapitulates native cartilage. During the past 25 years, promising new strategies using assorted scaffolds and cell sources to induce chondrocyte expansion have emerged. We reviewed the evolution of autologous chondrocyte implantation and compared it to other cartilage repair techniques.Methods. We searched PubMed from 1949 to 2014 for the keywords “autologous chondrocyte implantation” (ACI) and “cartilage repair” in clinical trials, meta-analyses, and review articles. We analyzed these articles, their bibliographies, our experience, and cartilage regeneration textbooks.Results. Microfracture, abrasion chondroplasty, osteochondral grafting, ACI, and autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis are distinguishable by cell source (including chondrocytes and stem cells) and associated scaffolds (natural or synthetic, hydrogels or membranes). ACI seems to be as good as, if not better than, microfracture for repairing large chondral defects in a young patient’s knee as evaluated by multiple clinical indices and the quality of regenerated tissue.Conclusion. Although there is not enough evidence to determine the best repair technique, ACI is the most established cell-based treatment for full-thickness chondral defects in young patients.

scholarly journals How to Manage a Failed Cartilage Repair: A Systematic Literature Review

Joints ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 05 (02) ◽  
pp. 093-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donato Rosa ◽  
Sigismondo Di Donato ◽  
Giovanni Balato ◽  
Alessio D'Addona ◽  
Francesco Smeraglia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Failure Rate ◽  
Cartilage Repair ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Osteochondral Allograft ◽  
Time To Failure ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte

Purpose The aims of this paper are to report the rate and risk factors for the failure of the most common cartilage repair technique, and analyze the most important factors that could influence the choice of a specific surgical treatment to revise a failed cartilage repair. Methods A review of the literature was performed focusing on failed cartilage repair and related treatments. Two of the authors independently screened articles. Conflicts about the inclusion of a paper was resolved by further evaluation by the senior author. Review articles, articles written in languages different from/other than English, case reports, and papers that did not evaluate the outcomes of interest were excluded. Full-text version of each included paper was obtained and relevant data were extracted and collected in a database. Results At the end of the screening process, 31 articles were included. Microfractures and mosaicplasty showed a nonnegligible failure rate at short- and midterm. Better results, especially in terms of time to failure or revision, were reported with the use of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation. Regarding the treatment of failed cartilage repair, the use of OCA transplantation in patients with previous failed cartilage repair may be a safe option. The revision of failed OCA transplantation with further OCA seems to have a greater failure rate. Patients with previous failed ACI or matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) who underwent further MACI or ACI reported acceptable results. Otherwise, ACI in patients with history of previous subchondral marrow stimulation (SMS) demonstrated a greater failure rate. Conclusion From the analysis of the literature, OCA transplantation seems to be the most reliable treatment of a failed SMS. ACI or MACI showed acceptable results in patients with previously failed MACI or ACI. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of level I-IV studies.

Correlation between the subchondral bone marrow lesions and cartilage repair tissue after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: a cross-sectional study

2020 ◽  
pp. 028418512096995
Author(s):  
Jialing Lyu ◽  
Yindi Zhang ◽  
Weimin Zhu ◽  
Dingfu Li ◽  
Weiqiang Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Relaxation Time ◽  
Cartilage Repair ◽  
Subchondral Bone ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Repair Tissue ◽  
Bone Marrow Lesions ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
And Cartilage ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte

Background The contribution of the subchondral bone in the development and progression of osteoarthritis (OA) has long been recognized, but its role in cartilage repair procedures has only recently attracted more attention. Purpose To explore the correlation between the cartilage repair tissue (RT) and the subchondral bone marrow lesions (BMLs) after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) in the knee joint. Material and Methods A total of 30 patients who underwent MACI in the knee from January 2015 to June 2018 and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan were recruited in this study. The MRI results of cartilage RT were evaluated using T2* relaxation time. Subchondral BMLs were also qualitatively evaluated by use of the two-dimensional proton density-weighted fat-suppressed (2D-PD-FS) and three-dimensional dual-echo steady-state (3D-DESS) sequences. Results The univariate analysis displayed a significant negative correlation between subchondral BMLs and cartilage RT ( P < 0.01). In the minimally adjusted model (only age, sex, and body mass index [BMI] adjusted), the results did not show obvious changes (β = –6.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = –10.99 to –2.09; P = 0.008). After adjustment for the full models (age, sex, BMI, defect size, combined injury, and preoperative duration of symptoms adjusted), the connection was also detected (β = –6.66, 95% CI –11.82 to –1.50; P = 0.019). Conclusion After MACI, the subchondral BMLs are significantly correlated with cartilage RT-T2* relaxation time. The role of subchondral bone in cartilage repair procedures should not be underestimated.

Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation and Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation Render Comparable Outcomes in the Setting of Failed Marrow Stimulation

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 861-870 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Riff ◽  
Hailey P. Huddleston ◽  
Brian J. Cole ◽  
Adam B. Yanke
Keyword(s):  
Failure Rate ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Osteochondral Allograft ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Marrow Stimulation ◽  
Subjective Satisfaction ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte

Background: Marrow stimulation techniques (MSTs) such as subchondral drilling and microfracture are often chosen as first-line treatment options for symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee. When an MST fails, many cartilage restoration techniques are employed, including autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and osteochondral allograft (OCA). However, a few series in the literature suggest that ACI after a failed MST results in inferior outcomes as compared with primary ACI. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate the clinical outcomes of ACI and OCA after a failed MST (secondary ACI and OCA) and compare them with the outcomes of primary ACI and OCA and (2) to compare clinical outcomes of secondary ACI and secondary OCA for refractory lesions involving the femoral condyle. The hypotheses were as follows: (1) secondary ACI will render inferior functional outcomes and an increased clinical failure rate as compared with primary ACI, (2) secondary OCA will render comparable results to primary OCA, and (3) secondary OCA will render superior outcomes to secondary ACI. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients were retrospectively identified who underwent ACI and OCA for symptomatic chondral lesions of the knee refractory to a previous MST. Age-, sex-, and body mass index–matched groups of patients undergoing primary ACI and OCA were used as controls. Postoperative data were prospectively collected using several subjective scoring systems (Tegner, Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey). Groups were compared with regard to patient-reported outcomes, subjective satisfaction, clinical failure rate, and reoperation. Student t tests were used for continuous data, and chi-square tests were performed for categorical data. Results: A total of 359 patients were examined: 92 patients undergoing secondary ACI, 100 primary ACI, 88 secondary OCA, and 79 primary OCA. The mean patient age was 30.3 years (range, 14.9-49.9 years) at the time of ACI and 35.4 (range, 15-54.5) at the time of OCA. There was no difference between the primary and secondary groups with regard to postoperative functional scores, subjective satisfaction, reoperation rate, and clinical failure rate. Conclusion: ACI and OCA are both viable treatment options for chondral defects of the knee, even in the setting of a failed MST. Secondary ACI renders functional outcomes, subjective satisfaction, and reoperation and failure rates comparable with primary ACI and secondary OCA.

scholarly journals Intralesional Osteophyte Regrowth Following Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation after Previous Treatment with Marrow Stimulation Technique

Cartilage ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Kawamura Demange ◽  
Tom Minas ◽  
Arvind von Keudell ◽  
Sonal Sodha ◽  
Tim Bryant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Previous Treatment ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Collagen Membrane ◽  
Bone Marrow Stimulation ◽  
Marrow Stimulation ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
And Control ◽  
Stimulation Technique ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte

Objective Bone marrow stimulation surgeries are frequent in the treatment of cartilage lesions. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) may be performed after failed microfracture surgery. Alterations to subchondral bone as intralesional osteophytes are commonly seen after previous microfracture and removed during ACI. There have been no reports on potential recurrence. Our purpose was to evaluate the incidence of intralesional osteophyte development in 2 cohorts: existing intralesional osteophytes and without intralesional osteophytes at the time of ACI. Study Design We identified 87 patients (157 lesions) with intralesional osteophytes among a cohort of 497 ACI patients. Osteophyte regrowth was analyzed on magnetic resonance imaging and categorized as small or large (less or more than 50% of the cartilage thickness). Twenty patients (24 defects) without intralesional osteophytes at the time of ACI acted as control. Results Osteophyte regrowth was observed in 39.5% of lesions (34.4% of small osteophytes and 5.1% of large osteophytes). In subgroup analyses, regrowth was observed in 45.8% of periosteal-covered defects and in 18.9% of collagen membrane–covered defects. Large osteophyte regrowth occurred in less than 5% in either group. Periosteal defects showed a significantly higher incidence for regrowth of small osteophytes. In the control group, intralesional osteophytes developed in 16.7% of the lesions. Conclusions Even though intralesional osteophytes may regrow after removal during ACI, most of them are small. Small osteophyte regrowth occurs almost twice in periosteum-covered ACI. Large osteophytes occur only in 5% of patients. Intralesional osteophyte formation is not significantly different in preexisting intralesional osteophytes and control groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document