Affiliation:
1. Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt‐Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery Berlin Germany
Abstract
AbstractPurposeThis study addresses the gap in the current literature by evaluating the combined treatment of autologous bone grafting and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ABCI) for osteochondral defects of the knee. It aims to evaluate clinical outcomes against methodological quality and to summarize histological results and surgical techniques.MethodsA thorough search was conducted across Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase databases. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of ABCI for osteochondral defects of the knee were included. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), failure rates, methodological quality and potential conflicts of interest were evaluated. Histological results and surgical techniques were summarized.ResultsEighteen studies with 344 analyzed patients met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. All studies showed a significant improvement (p < 0.05) across different PROMs (subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score, Cincinnati Knee Rating System, Visual Analogue Scale, Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Knee Society Score) compared to the preoperative status. Failure rates ranged from 0% to 17.6%, with a mean follow‐up of 73.2 months (range: 9.0–143.6 months). Methodological quality was low to medium, including only one comparative study. Six studies reviewed reported a potential conflict of interest. The histological assessment showed effective bonding between autologous chondrocytes and bone graft. A large degree of variability was observed in the operative technique used.ConclusionThe current literature suggests that ABCI yields good clinical outcomes at mid‐ to long‐term follow‐up with favourable histological results for osteochondral defects of the knee. However, future research should focus on high‐quality comparative studies to better guide treatment choices. Introducing ABCI as the standard abbreviation may enhance clarity in future research.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.