S Flohé1, M Betsch2, K Ruße3, M Wild1, J Windolf1, M Schulz4. 1. Department of Trauma and Hand Surgery, Heinrich Heine University Hospital Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. 2. Department of Trauma and Hand Surgery, Heinrich Heine University Hospital Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. marcel.betsch@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 3. Department of Arthroscopic Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Sankt Josef Orthopaedic and Rheumatology Centre Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany. 4. Department of Surgery, St. Johannes-Hospital Varel, Varel, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee is a common problem in orthopaedic surgery. Autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT) is one of the few reliable treatment options of cartilage defects with good long-term outcomes. The improvement of ACT led to the matrix-based ACT (MACT). The purpose of the study was to compare two different commercially available MACT systems. METHODS: Eleven patients with a cartilage defect of the knee were treated with the MACI(®) system and another nine patients with the CaRes(®) implant. The patients were prospectively followed and re-examined after one year. RESULTS: One year after surgery all but one patient have significantly improved in their clinical outcome. Both types of MACT revealed similar results in terms of increase in level of activity, pain relief and knee function. CONCLUSION: The study showed that MACT is a good therapeutic option for full-size defects of the femoral condyle. The MACI(®) implant seems to be easier to handle which is reflected by smaller incisions and a shorter operation time.
PURPOSE: The treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee is a common problem in orthopaedic surgery. Autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT) is one of the few reliable treatment options of cartilage defects with good long-term outcomes. The improvement of ACT led to the matrix-based ACT (MACT). The purpose of the study was to compare two different commercially available MACT systems. METHODS: Eleven patients with a cartilage defect of the knee were treated with the MACI(®) system and another nine patients with the CaRes(®) implant. The patients were prospectively followed and re-examined after one year. RESULTS: One year after surgery all but one patient have significantly improved in their clinical outcome. Both types of MACT revealed similar results in terms of increase in level of activity, pain relief and knee function. CONCLUSION: The study showed that MACT is a good therapeutic option for full-size defects of the femoral condyle. The MACI(®) implant seems to be easier to handle which is reflected by smaller incisions and a shorter operation time.
Authors: Sebastian Concaro; Elin Nicklasson; Linda Ellowsson; Anders Lindahl; Mats Brittberg; Paul Gatenholm Journal: J Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.963
Authors: M Marcacci; S Zaffagnini; E Kon; A Visani; F Iacono; I Loreti Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Elizaveta Kon; Alberto Gobbi; Giuseppe Filardo; Marco Delcogliano; Stefano Zaffagnini; Maurilio Marcacci Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: P Behrens; U Bosch; J Bruns; C Erggelet; S A Esenwein; C Gaissmaier; T Krackhardt; J Löhnert; S Marlovits; N M Meenen; J Mollenhauer; S Nehrer; F U Niethard; U Nöth; C Perka; W Richter; D Schäfer; U Schneider; M Steinwachs; K Weise Journal: Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb Date: 2004 Sep-Oct
Authors: U Maus; U Schneider; S Gravius; R Müller-Rath; T Mumme; O Miltner; D Bauer; C Niedhart; S Andereya Journal: Z Orthop Unfall Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 0.923