-
Orthopedic Research and Reviews
-
About Dovepress
Open access peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals.
-
Open Access
Dove Medical Press is now a member of the Open Access Initiative
-
An Author's Guide
A guide to help authors get their paper published.
-
Advocacy
Support Open Access and Dove Press
-
Reprints
Promotional Article Monitoring - further details
-
Favored Author Program
Real benefits for authors, including fast-track processing of papers.
One-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current review
Other
(1645) Views (864) Full article downloads
Authors: Daniel Meyerkort, David Wood, Ming-Hao Zheng
Published Date October 2010
Volume 2010:2 Pages 95 - 106
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S10808
Daniel Meyerkort, David Wood, Ming-Hao ZhengCenter for Orthopaedic Research, School of Surgery and Pathology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Introduction: Articular cartilage has a poor capacity for regeneration if damaged. Various methods have been used to restore the articular surface, improve pain, function, and slow progression to osteoarthritis.
Method: A PubMed review was performed on 18 March, 2010. Search terms included “autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI)” and “microfracture” or “mosaicplasty”. The aim of this review was to determine if 1-stage or 2-stage procedures for cartilage repair produced different functional outcomes.
Results: The main procedures currently used are ACI and microfracture. Both first-generation ACI and microfracture result in clinical and functional improvement with no significant differences. A significant increase in functional outcome has been observed in second-generation procedures such as Hyalograft C, matrix-induced ACI, and ChondroCelect compared with microfracture. ACI results in a higher percentage of patients with clinical improvement than mosaicplasty; however, these results may take longer to achieve.
Conclusion: Clinical and functional improvements have been demonstrated with ACI, microfracture, mosaicplasty, and synthetic cartilage constructs. Heterogeneous products and lack of good-quality randomized-control trials make product comparison difficult. Future developments involve scaffolds, gene therapy, growth factors, and stem cells to create a single-stage procedure that results in hyaline articular cartilage.
Keywords: autologous chondrocyte implantation, microfracture, cartilage repair
Readers of this article also read:
Utility of double-contrast multidetector CT scans to assess cartilage thickness after tibial plafond fracture
Excessively anterior placement of the fibular interfragmentary screw can result in a malreduced ankle syndesmosis – a technical report
Comparison of avian and nonavian hyaluronic acid in osteoarthritis of the knee
Role of cartilage-forming cells in regenerative medicine for cartilage repair
Treatment of osteoarthritis knee pain: update on use of intra-articular hylan G-F 20
Topical diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee
Erratum
Physiotherapy in early phase of low back pain
Peroneal island flap for wound coverage in complex injuries of the lower extremity
- Testimonials
"You do a tremendous job!!" Ruben Restrepo, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
- Local anesthetic failure associated with inflammation: verification of the acidosis mechanism and the hypothetic participation of inflammatory peroxynitrite
- Inflammatory mediators: Parallels between cancer biology and stem cell therapy
- Inflammatory mechanisms in the lung
- Rotator cuff troublemakers: pitfalls of MRI and ultrasound




