Biological Reconstruction of Localized Full-Thickness Cartilage Defects of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Level 1 Studies with a Minimum Follow-Up of 5 Years

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the best available mid- to long-term evidence of surgical procedures for the treatment of localized full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee. Design Systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines of Level 1 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), meta-analyses of RCTs and systematic reviews with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Data extracted included patient demographics, defect characteristics, clinical and radiological outcomes, as well as treatment failures. Results Six RCTs and 3 Level 1 systematic reviews were included. Two RCTs compared microfracture (MFx) to periosteum-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI-P), 1 to matrix-associated ACI (M-ACI) and 2 to osteochondral autograft transplantation (OAT). One study compared OAT to collagen membrane covered ACI (ACI-C). The 3 Level 1 systematic reviews/meta-analyses assessed the outcome of MFx, OAT, and various ACI methods in RCTs. OAT showed significantly better outcomes compared with MFx. In the 2 RCTs comparing ACI-P and MFx, no significant differences in clinical outcomes were seen, whereas significantly better outcomes were reported for M-ACI versus MFx in 1 study including patients with larger defects (5 cm2), and for ACI-C versus OAT in terms of Cincinnati Score. Higher failure rates were reported for MFx compared with OAT and for OAT compared with ACI-C, while no significant differences in failure rates were observed for ACI-P compared to MFx. Conclusion Restorative cartilage procedures (ACI-C or M-ACI and OAT) are associated with better long-term clinical outcomes including lower complication and failure rates when compared with reparative techniques (MFx). Among the restorative procedures, OAT seems to be inferior to ACI especially in larger defects after longer follow-up periods. Level of evidence: Level I: Systematic review of Level I studies