Literature DB >> 21460066

Outcomes after a single-stage procedure for cell-based cartilage repair: a prospective clinical safety trial with 2-year follow-up.

Brian J Cole1, Jack Farr, C S Winalski, Timothy Hosea, John Richmond, Bert Mandelbaum, Patrick G De Deyne.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are currently several approaches being pursued to treat focal defects of articular cartilage, each having specific advantages or challenges. A single-stage procedure that uses autologous cartilage fragments, Cartilage Autograft Implantation System (CAIS), is being evaluated in patients and may offer a clinically effective option.
PURPOSE: To establish the safety of CAIS and to test whether CAIS improves quality of life by using standardized outcomes assessment tools. STUDY
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: Patients (n = 29) were randomized (1:2) with the intent to treat with either a control (microfracture [MFX]) or an experimental (CAIS) procedure. Patients were followed at predetermined time points for 2 years using several standardized outcomes assessment tools (SF-36, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS]). Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at baseline, 3 weeks, and 6, 12, and 24 months.
RESULTS: Lesion size and International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade were similar in both groups. General outcome measures (eg, physical component score of the SF-36) indicated an overall improvement in both groups, and no differences in the number of adverse effects were noted in comparisons between the CAIS and MFX groups. The IKDC score of the CAIS group was significantly higher (73.9 ± 14.72 at 12 months and 82.95 ± 14.88 at 24 months) compared with the MFX group (57.78 ± 18.31 at 12 months and 59.5 ± 13.44 at 24 months). Select subdomains (4/5) in the KOOS instrument were significantly different at 12 and 18 months, and all subdomains (Symptoms and Stiffness, Pain, Activities of Daily Living, Sports and Recreation, Knee-related Quality of Life) were significantly increased at 24 months in CAIS with scores of 88.47 ± 11.68, 90.64 ± 7.87, 97.29 ± 3.8, 78.16 ± 22.06, and 69 ± 23.15 compared with 75 ± 9.31, 78.94 ± 13.73, 89.46 ± 8.13, 51.67 ± 26.01, and 37.15 ± 21.67 in the MFX group. These significant improvements were maintained at 24 months in both IKDC and KOOS. Qualitative analysis of the imaging data did not note differences between the 2 groups in fill of the graft bed, tissue integration, or presence of subchondral cysts. Patients treated with MFX had a significantly higher incidence of intralesional osteophyte formation (54% and 70% of total number of lesions treated) at 6 and 12 months when compared with CAIS (8% and 25% of total number of lesions treated).
CONCLUSION: The first clinical experience in using CAIS for treating patients with focal chondral defects indicates that it is a safe, feasible, and effective method that may improve long-term clinical outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21460066     DOI: 10.1177/0363546511399382

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  65 in total

1.  The use of autologous adult, allogenic juvenile, and combined juvenile-adult cartilage fragments for the repair of chondral defects.

Authors:  Davide Edoardo Bonasia; James A Martin; Antonio Marmotti; Gail L Kurriger; Abigail D Lehman; Roberto Rossi; Annunziato Amendola
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Management of knee articular cartilage injuries in athletes: chondroprotection, chondrofacilitation, and resurfacing.

Authors:  Iain R Murray; Michael T Benke; Bert R Mandelbaum
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  The comparison between the different generations of autologous chondrocyte implantation with other treatment modalities: a systematic review of clinical trials.

Authors:  Ely Zarina Samsudin; Tunku Kamarul
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-05-24       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  The state of cartilage regeneration: current and future technologies.

Authors:  Adam B Yanke; Susan Chubinskaya
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-03

Review 5.  Repair and tissue engineering techniques for articular cartilage.

Authors:  Eleftherios A Makris; Andreas H Gomoll; Konstantinos N Malizos; Jerry C Hu; Kyriacos A Athanasiou
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 20.543

Review 6.  Surgical and tissue engineering strategies for articular cartilage and meniscus repair.

Authors:  Heenam Kwon; Wendy E Brown; Cassandra A Lee; Dean Wang; Nikolaos Paschos; Jerry C Hu; Kyriacos A Athanasiou
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 20.543

7.  The Benefit of Minced Cartilage Over Isolated Chondrocytes in Atelocollagen Gel on Chondrocyte Proliferation and Migration.

Authors:  Yusuke Tsuyuguchi; Tomoyuki Nakasa; Masakazu Ishikawa; Shigeru Miyaki; Ryosuke Matsushita; Munekazu Kanemitsu; Nobuo Adachi
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 8.  Cartilage repair and joint preservation: medical and surgical treatment options.

Authors:  Henning Madry; Ulrich Wolfgang Grün; Gunnar Knutsen
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2011-10-07       Impact factor: 5.594

9.  Particulate cartilage under bioreactor-induced compression and shear.

Authors:  Ning Wang; Sibylle Grad; Martin J Stoddart; Philipp Niemeyer; Kilian Reising; Hagen Schmal; Norbert P Südkamp; Mauro Alini; Gian M Salzmann
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 10.  Significance of epigenetic landscape in cartilage regeneration from the cartilage development and pathology perspective.

Authors:  Jingting Li; James Ohliger; Ming Pei
Journal:  Stem Cells Dev       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 3.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.