Matrix-Applied Characterized Autologous Cultured Chondrocytes Versus Microfracture

Author:

Saris Daniel12,Price Andrew3,Widuchowski Wojciech4,Bertrand-Marchand Marion5,Caron Jacob6,Drogset Jon Olav7,Emans Pieter8,Podskubka Ales9,Tsuchida Anika1,Kili Sven10,Levine David11,Brittberg Mats12,Paša Libor,Trc Tomas,Slynarski Konrad,Sanson Bernd-Jan,Bezuidenhoudt Mauritz,

Affiliation:

1. University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands

2. Reconstructive Medicine, Tissue Regeneration, MIRA Institute, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands

3. NIHR Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

4. District Hospital of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Department of Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy and Sports Traumatology, Piekary Slaskie, Poland

5. Chirurgie Arthrose, Sport et Arthroscopie, Polyclinique Saint Roch, Montpellier, France

6. St Elisabeth Ziekenhuis, Afdeling Orthopedie, Tilburg, the Netherlands

7. Department of Orthopaedics, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

8. Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht, Afdeling Orthopedie, Maastricht, the Netherlands

9. First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Hospital Bulovka, Prague, Czech Republic

10. Genzyme Biosurgery (now Sanofi Biosurgery), Oxford, UK

11. Genzyme Biosurgery (now Sanofi Biosurgery), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

12. Region Halland Orthopedics, Kungsbacka Hospital, Kungsbacka, Sweden

Abstract

Background: Randomized controlled trials studying the efficacy and safety of matrix-applied characterized autologous cultured chondrocytes (MACI) versus microfracture (MFX) for treating cartilage defects are limited. Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of MACI versus MFX in the treatment of patients with symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee. Study Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Patients enrolled in the SUMMIT (Demonstrate the Superiority of MACI implant to Microfracture Treatment) trial had ≥1 symptomatic focal cartilage defect (Outerbridge grade III or IV; ≥3 cm2) of the femoral condyles or trochlea, with a baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain value <55. The co–primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the KOOS pain and function subscores from baseline to 2 years. Histological evaluation and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessments of structural repair tissue, treatment failure, the remaining 3 KOOS subscales, and safety were also assessed. Results: Of the 144 patients treated, 137 (95%) completed the 2-year assessment. Patients had a mean age of 33.8 years and a mean lesion size of 4.8 cm2. The mean KOOS pain and function subscores from baseline to 2 years were significantly more improved with MACI than with MFX (pain: MACI, 37.0 to 82.5 vs MFX, 35.5 to 70.9; function: MACI, 14.9 to 60.9 vs MFX, 12.6 to 48.7; P = .001). A significant improvement in scores was also observed on the KOOS subscales of activities of daily living (MACI, 43.5 to 87.2 vs MFX, 42.6 to 75.8; P < .001), knee-related quality of life (MACI, 18.8 to 56.2 vs MFX, 17.2 to 47.3; P = .029), and other symptoms (MACI, 48.3 to 83.7 vs MFX, 44.4 to 72.2; P < .001) for patients treated with MACI compared with MFX. Repair tissue quality was good as assessed by histology/MRI, but no difference was shown between treatments. A low number of treatment failures (nonresponders: MACI, 12.5% vs MFX, 31.9%; P = .016) and no unexpected safety findings were reported. Conclusion: The treatment of symptomatic cartilage knee defects ≥3 cm2 in size using MACI was clinically and statistically significantly better than with MFX, with similar structural repair tissue and safety, in this heterogeneous patient population. Moreover, MACI offers a more efficacious alternative than MFX with a similar safety profile for the treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3