Ely Zarina Samsudin1, Tunku Kamarul2. 1. Clinical Investigation Centre, University Malaya Medical Centre, 59100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. elyzarina07@yahoo.com. 2. Clinical Investigation Centre, University Malaya Medical Centre, 59100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper aims to review the current evidence for autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) generations relative to other treatment modalities, different cell delivery methods and different cell source application. METHODS: Literature search was performed to identify all level I and II studies reporting the clinical and structural outcome of any ACI generation in human knees using the following medical electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and NICE healthcare database. The level of evidence, sample size calculation and risk of bias were determined for all included studies to enable quality assessment. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in the analysis, reporting on a total of 1094 patients. Of the 20 studies, 13 compared ACI with other treatment modalities, seven compared different ACI cell delivery methods, and one compared different cell source for implantation. Studies included were heterogeneous in baseline design, preventing meta-analysis. Data showed a trend towards similar outcomes when comparing ACI generations with other repair techniques and when comparing different cell delivery methods and cell source selection. Majority of the studies (80 %) were level II evidence, and overall the quality of studies can be rated as average to low, with the absence of power analysis in 65 % studies. CONCLUSION: At present, there are insufficient data to conclude any superiority of ACI techniques. Considering its two-stage operation and cost, it may be appropriate to reserve ACI for patients with larger defects or those who have had inadequate response to other repair procedures until hard evidence enables specific clinical recommendations be made. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
PURPOSE: This paper aims to review the current evidence for autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) generations relative to other treatment modalities, different cell delivery methods and different cell source application. METHODS: Literature search was performed to identify all level I and II studies reporting the clinical and structural outcome of any ACI generation in human knees using the following medical electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and NICE healthcare database. The level of evidence, sample size calculation and risk of bias were determined for all included studies to enable quality assessment. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in the analysis, reporting on a total of 1094 patients. Of the 20 studies, 13 compared ACI with other treatment modalities, seven compared different ACI cell delivery methods, and one compared different cell source for implantation. Studies included were heterogeneous in baseline design, preventing meta-analysis. Data showed a trend towards similar outcomes when comparing ACI generations with other repair techniques and when comparing different cell delivery methods and cell source selection. Majority of the studies (80 %) were level II evidence, and overall the quality of studies can be rated as average to low, with the absence of power analysis in 65 % studies. CONCLUSION: At present, there are insufficient data to conclude any superiority of ACI techniques. Considering its two-stage operation and cost, it may be appropriate to reserve ACI for patients with larger defects or those who have had inadequate response to other repair procedures until hard evidence enables specific clinical recommendations be made. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Karen Hambly; Vladimir Bobic; Barbara Wondrasch; Dieter Van Assche; Stefan Marlovits Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2006-01-25 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Philipp Niemeyer; Jan M Pestka; Peter C Kreuz; Christoph Erggelet; Hagen Schmal; Norbert P Suedkamp; Matthias Steinwachs Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Joshua D Harris; Brandon J Erickson; Geoffrey D Abrams; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Frank M McCormick; Anil K Gupta; Bernard R Bach; Brian J Cole Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: P C Kreuz; M Steinwachs; C Erggelet; S J Krause; C Ossendorf; D Maier; N Ghanem; M Uhl; M Haag Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2007-07-13 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Philipp Niemeyer; Gian Salzmann; Matthias Feucht; Jan Pestka; Stella Porichis; Peter Ogon; Norbert Südkamp; Hagen Schmal Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Thomas Richard Niethammer; Martin Holzgruber; Mehmet Fatih Gülecyüz; Patrick Weber; Matthias Frank Pietschmann; Peter Ernst Müller Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Betina B Hinckel; Dimitri Thomas; Evan E Vellios; Kyle John Hancock; Jacob G Calcei; Seth L Sherman; Claire D Eliasberg; Tiago L Fernandes; Jack Farr; Christian Lattermann; Andreas H Gomoll Journal: Cartilage Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Thomas Richard Niethammer; Felix Uhlemann; Anja Zhang; Martin Holzgruber; Ferdinand Wagner; Peter Ernst Müller Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 4.114
Authors: Jan M Pestka; Nam H Luu; Norbert P Südkamp; Peter Angele; Gunther Spahn; Wolfgang Zinser; Philipp Niemeyer Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2018-02-08