Marco Collarile1, Andrea Sambri2, Giada Lullini3, Matteo Cadossi3, Claudio Zorzi1. 1. Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria, Via Don Sempreboni 5, 37024, Negrar, VR, Italy. 2. Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Cesare Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy. andrea_sambri@libero.it. 3. Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Cesare Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) on clinical outcome in patients who underwentarthroscopic matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) for chondral lesions of the knee. METHODS:Thirty patients affected by grade III and IV International Cartilage Repair Society chondral lesions of the knee underwent MACI. After surgery, patients were randomly assigned to either experimental group (PEMFs 4 h per day for 60 days) or control group . Clinical outcome was evaluated through International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation form, Visual Analog Scale, Short Form-36 (SF-36) and EuroQoL before surgery and 1, 2, 6, and 60 months postoperative. RESULTS:Mean size of chondral lesion was 2.4 ± 0.6 cm2 in the PEMFs group and 2.5 ± 0.5 cm2 in the control one. No differences were found between groups at baseline. IKDC score increased in both groups till 6 months, but afterward improvement was observed only in the experimental group with a significant difference between groups at 60 months (p = 0.001). A significant difference between groups was recorded at 60 months for SF-36 (p = 0.006) and EuroQol (p = 0.020). A significant pain reduction was observed in the experimental group at 1-, 2- and 60-month follow-up. CONCLUSION:Biophysical stimulation with PEMFs improves clinical outcome after arthroscopic MACI for chondral lesions of the knee in the short- and long-term follow-up. Biophysical stimulation should be considered as an effective tool in order to ameliorate clinical results of regenerative medicine. The use of PEMFs represents an innovative therapeutic approach for the survival of cartilage-engineered constructs and consequently the success of orthopaedic surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) on clinical outcome in patients who underwent arthroscopic matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) for chondral lesions of the knee. METHODS: Thirty patients affected by grade III and IV International Cartilage Repair Society chondral lesions of the knee underwent MACI. After surgery, patients were randomly assigned to either experimental group (PEMFs 4 h per day for 60 days) or control group . Clinical outcome was evaluated through International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation form, Visual Analog Scale, Short Form-36 (SF-36) and EuroQoL before surgery and 1, 2, 6, and 60 months postoperative. RESULTS: Mean size of chondral lesion was 2.4 ± 0.6 cm2 in the PEMFs group and 2.5 ± 0.5 cm2 in the control one. No differences were found between groups at baseline. IKDC score increased in both groups till 6 months, but afterward improvement was observed only in the experimental group with a significant difference between groups at 60 months (p = 0.001). A significant difference between groups was recorded at 60 months for SF-36 (p = 0.006) and EuroQol (p = 0.020). A significant pain reduction was observed in the experimental group at 1-, 2- and 60-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Biophysical stimulation with PEMFs improves clinical outcome after arthroscopic MACI for chondral lesions of the knee in the short- and long-term follow-up. Biophysical stimulation should be considered as an effective tool in order to ameliorate clinical results of regenerative medicine. The use of PEMFs represents an innovative therapeutic approach for the survival of cartilage-engineered constructs and consequently the success of orthopaedic surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Alexandra N Colebatch; Deborah J Hart; Guangju Zhai; F M Williams; Tim D Spector; Nigel K Arden Journal: Knee Date: 2008-09-14 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: M De Mattei; M Fini; S Setti; A Ongaro; D Gemmati; G Stabellini; A Pellati; A Caruso Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Lara Longobardi; Lynda O'Rear; Srikanth Aakula; Brian Johnstone; Kimberly Shimer; Anna Chytil; William A Horton; Harold L Moses; Anna Spagnoli Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2006-04-05 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Lukas Zak; Christian Albrecht; Barbara Wondrasch; Harald Widhalm; György Vekszler; Siegfried Trattnig; Stefan Marlovits; Silke Aldrian Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: M E Jahns; E Lou; N G Durdle; K Bagnall; V J Raso; D Cinats; R D C Barley; J Cinats; N M Jomha Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2007-08-14 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: M De Mattei; K Varani; F F Masieri; A Pellati; A Ongaro; M Fini; R Cadossi; F Vincenzi; P A Borea; A Caruso Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2008-07-18 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Jay R Ebert; William B Robertson; David G Lloyd; M H Zheng; David J Wood; Timothy Ackland Journal: Cartilage Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Robert M Stefani; Sofia Barbosa; Andrea R Tan; Stefania Setti; Aaron M Stoker; Gerard A Ateshian; Ruggero Cadossi; Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic; Roy K Aaron; James L Cook; J Chloë Bulinski; Clark T Hung Journal: Biotechnol Bioeng Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 4.530