Liang Gao1, Patrick Orth1,2, Magali Cucchiarini1, Henning Madry1,2. 1. Center of Experimental Orthopaedics, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saarland University Medical Center, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The addition of a type I/III collagen membrane in cartilage defects treated with microfracture has been advocated for cartilage repair, termed "autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis" (AMIC). PURPOSE: To examine the current clinical evidence regarding AMIC for focal chondral defects. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies of AMIC for articular cartilage repair, written in English. Relative data were extracted and critically analyzed. PRISMA guidelines were applied, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by the modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS), and aggregate data were generated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight clinical articles were included: 12 studies (245 patients) of knee cartilage defects, 12 studies (214 patients) of ankle cartilage defects, and 4 studies (308 patients) of hip cartilage defects. The CMS demonstrated a suboptimal study design in the majority of published studies (knee, 57.8; ankle, 55.3; hip, 57.7). For the knee, 1 study reported significant clinical improvements for AMIC compared with microfracture for medium-sized cartilage defects (mean defect size 3.6 cm2) after 5 years (level of evidence, 1). No study compared AMIC with matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) in the knee. For the ankle, no clinical trial was available comparing AMIC versus microfracture or ACI. In the hip, only one analysis (level of evidence, 3) compared AMIC with microfracture for acetabular lesions. For medium-sized acetabular defects, one study (level of evidence, 3) found no significant differences between AMIC and ACI at 5 years. Specific aspects not appropriately discussed in the currently available literature include patient-related factors, membrane fixation, and defect properties. No treatment-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This systematic review reveals a paucity of high-quality, randomized controlled studies testing the AMIC technique versus established procedures such as microfracture or ACI. Evidence is insufficient to recommend joint-specific indications for AMIC. Additional nonbiased, high-powered, randomized controlled clinical trials will provide better clinical and structural long-term evidence, thus helping to define possible indications for this technique.
BACKGROUND: The addition of a type I/III collagen membrane in cartilage defects treated with microfracture has been advocated for cartilage repair, termed "autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis" (AMIC). PURPOSE: To examine the current clinical evidence regarding AMIC for focal chondral defects. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies of AMIC for articular cartilage repair, written in English. Relative data were extracted and critically analyzed. PRISMA guidelines were applied, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by the modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS), and aggregate data were generated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight clinical articles were included: 12 studies (245 patients) of knee cartilage defects, 12 studies (214 patients) of ankle cartilage defects, and 4 studies (308 patients) of hip cartilage defects. The CMS demonstrated a suboptimal study design in the majority of published studies (knee, 57.8; ankle, 55.3; hip, 57.7). For the knee, 1 study reported significant clinical improvements for AMIC compared with microfracture for medium-sized cartilage defects (mean defect size 3.6 cm2) after 5 years (level of evidence, 1). No study compared AMIC with matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) in the knee. For the ankle, no clinical trial was available comparing AMIC versus microfracture or ACI. In the hip, only one analysis (level of evidence, 3) compared AMIC with microfracture for acetabular lesions. For medium-sized acetabular defects, one study (level of evidence, 3) found no significant differences between AMIC and ACI at 5 years. Specific aspects not appropriately discussed in the currently available literature include patient-related factors, membrane fixation, and defect properties. No treatment-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This systematic review reveals a paucity of high-quality, randomized controlled studies testing the AMIC technique versus established procedures such as microfracture or ACI. Evidence is insufficient to recommend joint-specific indications for AMIC. Additional nonbiased, high-powered, randomized controlled clinical trials will provide better clinical and structural long-term evidence, thus helping to define possible indications for this technique.
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
Authors: Karol Alí Apaza Alccayhuaman; Stefan Tangl; Stéphane Blouin; Markus A Hartmann; Patrick Heimel; Ulrike Kuchler; Jung-Seok Lee; Reinhard Gruber Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2021-06-25
Authors: Kris T C Hede; Bjørn B Christensen; Morten L Olesen; Jesper Skovhus Thomsen; Casper B Foldager; Wei Seong Toh; Sai Kiang Lim; Martin C Lind Journal: Cartilage Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 3.117