One-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current review

Daniel Meyerkort, David Wood, Ming-Hao Zheng
Center 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