PURPOSE: Although many newer cartilage repair techniques have evolved over the past 2 decades, microfracture is still being advocated as the first line of treatment. Therefore it is timely to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to assess and report on the current status of Level I and II evidence studies related to microfracture techniques. METHODS: A literature search was carried out for Level I and II evidence studies on cartilage repair using the PubMed database. All the studies that dealt with microfracture techniques were selected. RESULTS: Fifteen studies that involved microfracture techniques met the inclusion criteria of this review article, with 6 long-term and 9 short-term studies. These studies compared the clinical outcomes of microfracture with those of other treatments such as autologous chondrocyte implantation and osteochondral cylinder transfers. The majority of the studies reported poor clinical outcomes, whereas 2 studies reported the absence of any significant difference in the results. Small-sized lesions and younger patients showed good results in the short-term. However, osteoarthritis and treatment failures were observed at later postoperative periods of 5 to 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The use of microfracture for the treatment of small lesions in patients with low postoperative demands was observed to result in good clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up. Beyond 5 years postoperatively, treatment failure after microfracture could be expected regardless of lesion size. Younger patients showed better clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
PURPOSE: Although many newer cartilage repair techniques have evolved over the past 2 decades, microfracture is still being advocated as the first line of treatment. Therefore it is timely to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to assess and report on the current status of Level I and II evidence studies related to microfracture techniques. METHODS: A literature search was carried out for Level I and II evidence studies on cartilage repair using the PubMed database. All the studies that dealt with microfracture techniques were selected. RESULTS: Fifteen studies that involved microfracture techniques met the inclusion criteria of this review article, with 6 long-term and 9 short-term studies. These studies compared the clinical outcomes of microfracture with those of other treatments such as autologous chondrocyte implantation and osteochondral cylinder transfers. The majority of the studies reported poor clinical outcomes, whereas 2 studies reported the absence of any significant difference in the results. Small-sized lesions and younger patients showed good results in the short-term. However, osteoarthritis and treatment failures were observed at later postoperative periods of 5 to 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The use of microfracture for the treatment of small lesions in patients with low postoperative demands was observed to result in good clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up. Beyond 5 years postoperatively, treatment failure after microfracture could be expected regardless of lesion size. Younger patients showed better clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
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
Authors: Jonathan C Riboh; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Brian J Cole; Adam B Yanke Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Matthew T Wolf; Hong Zhang; Blanka Sharma; Norman A Marcus; Uwe Pietzner; Stefan Fickert; Achim Lueth; G H Robert Albers; Jennifer H Elisseeff Journal: Cartilage Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 4.634