OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) MOCART (Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue) 1 and 2.0 scores in the assessment of postoperative outcome after autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs). It was hypothesized that preoperative patient factors or OLT morphology are associated with postoperative MOCART scores; yet postoperative clinical outcome is not. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 4. This study evaluated isolated AMIC that were implanted on the talus of 35 patients for the treatment of symptomatic OLT. Tegner and AOFAS (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society) scores were obtained at an average follow-up of 4.5 ± 1.8 years and postoperative MRI scored according to the MOCART 1 and 2.0. RESULTS: OLT size showed significant correlation with postoperative MRI scores (MOCART 1: P = 0.006; MOCART 2.0: P = 0.004). Bone grafting was significantly associated with a MOCART 1 subscale (signal intensity of repair tissue; P = 0.038). Age and defect size showed significant correlations with MOCART 2.0 subscales (P < 0.05). Patients with shorter follow-up had a significantly higher MOCART 1 score and a trend toward better MOCART 2.0 scores than patients with longer follow-up (64.7 vs. 52.9 months, P = 0.02; 69.4 vs. 60.6 months, P = 0.058). No MOCART score was associated with postoperative patient-reported outcomes (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Osteochondral lesion size is associated with postoperative MOCART scores in patients treated with AMIC for OLTs, with decreasing MOCART scores over time. Yet clinical outcome does not correlate with any MOCART score. Thus, MOCART assessment seems to have no significant role in the postoperative treatment of asymptomatic patients that underwent AMIC for OLTs.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) MOCART (Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue) 1 and 2.0 scores in the assessment of postoperative outcome after autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs). It was hypothesized that preoperative patient factors or OLT morphology are associated with postoperative MOCART scores; yet postoperative clinical outcome is not. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 4. This study evaluated isolated AMIC that were implanted on the talus of 35 patients for the treatment of symptomatic OLT. Tegner and AOFAS (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society) scores were obtained at an average follow-up of 4.5 ± 1.8 years and postoperative MRI scored according to the MOCART 1 and 2.0. RESULTS: OLT size showed significant correlation with postoperative MRI scores (MOCART 1: P = 0.006; MOCART 2.0: P = 0.004). Bone grafting was significantly associated with a MOCART 1 subscale (signal intensity of repair tissue; P = 0.038). Age and defect size showed significant correlations with MOCART 2.0 subscales (P < 0.05). Patients with shorter follow-up had a significantly higher MOCART 1 score and a trend toward better MOCART 2.0 scores than patients with longer follow-up (64.7 vs. 52.9 months, P = 0.02; 69.4 vs. 60.6 months, P = 0.058). No MOCART score was associated with postoperative patient-reported outcomes (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Osteochondral lesion size is associated with postoperative MOCART scores in patients treated with AMIC for OLTs, with decreasing MOCART scores over time. Yet clinical outcome does not correlate with any MOCART score. Thus, MOCART assessment seems to have no significant role in the postoperative treatment of asymptomatic patients that underwent AMIC for OLTs.
Authors: Martin Wiewiorski; Lorenzo Werner; Jochen Paul; Andrew E Anderson; Alexej Barg; Victor Valderrabano Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Jan M Pestka; Hagen Schmal; Gian Salzmann; Jochen Hecky; Norbert P Südkamp; Philipp Niemeyer Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Jakob Ackermann; Gergo Merkely; Alexandre Barbieri Mestriner; Nehal Shah; Andreas H Gomoll Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Christiaan J A van Bergen; Laura S Kox; Mario Maas; Inger N Sierevelt; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs; C Niek van Dijk Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Esther M M Van Lieshout; A Siebe De Boer; Duncan E Meuffels; P Ted Den Hoed; Cornelis H Van der Vlies; Wim E Tuinebreijer; Michael H J Verhofstad Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jakob Ackermann; Fabio A Casari; Christoph Germann; Lizzy Weigelt; Stephan H Wirth; Arnd F Viehöfer Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-05-14
Authors: Sameera Abas; Jan Herman Kuiper; Sally Roberts; Helen McCarthy; Mike Williams; Andrew Bing; Bernhard Tins; Nilesh Makwana Journal: Cells Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 6.600
Authors: M P F Janssen; M J M Peters; E G M Steijvers-Peeters; P Szomolanyi; E M C Jutten; L W van Rhijn; L Peterson; A Lindahl; S Trattnig; P J Emans Journal: Cartilage Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Young Koo Lee; Ki Won Young; Jin Su Kim; Hong Seop Lee; Whi-Je Cho; Hyong Nyun Kim Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 2.362