Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Evidence-Based Status of Second- and Third-Generation Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Over First Generation: A Systematic Review of Level I and II Studies
Ist Teil von
Arthroscopy, 2013-11, Vol.29 (11), p.1872-1878
Ort / Verlag
United States: Elsevier Inc
Erscheinungsjahr
2013
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
Beschreibungen/Notizen
Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the Level I and II evidence for newer generations of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) versus first-generation ACI and to establish whether the newer generations have overcome the limitations associated with first-generation ACI. Methods A literature search was carried out for Level I and II evidence studies on cartilage repair using the PubMed database. All the studies that dealt with ACI were identified. Only Level I and II studies that compared newer generations against earlier generations were selected, whereas studies that compared ACI against other methods of cartilage repair were excluded. Results A total of 7 studies matched the selection criteria. Two studies compared periosteum-based autologous chondrocyte implantation (P-ACI) against collagen membrane–based autologous chondrocyte implantation (C-ACI), whereas one study each compared membrane-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) against P-ACI and C-ACI. One study on C-ACI compared results related to age, whereas 2 studies evaluated postoperative rehabilitation after MACI. There was weak evidence showing that C-ACI is better than P-ACI and that MACI is comparable with both P-ACI and C-ACI. The weak evidence is because of studies with short durations of follow-up, small numbers of patients, medium-sized defects, and younger age groups. There is good evidence favoring an accelerated weight-bearing regimen after MACI. There is currently no evidence that supports scaffold-based ACI or arthroscopic implantation over first-generation ACI. Conclusions The hypothesis is thus partly proved in favor of C-ACI/MACI against P-ACI with weak evidence, in favor of accelerated weight bearing after MACI with strong evidence, and not in favor of arthroscopic and scaffold-based implantations because of unavailable evidence. Level of Evidence Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.