Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

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.To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of MACI versus MFX in the treatment of patients with symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee.Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1.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 cm(2)) 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.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 cm(2). 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.The treatment of symptomatic cartilage knee defects ≥3 cm(2) 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.

Type

Journal article

Journal

The American journal of sports medicine

Publication Date

06/2014

Volume

42

Pages

1384 - 1394

Addresses

University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands Reconstructive Medicine, Tissue Regeneration, MIRA Institute, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands d.saris@umcutrecht.nl.

Keywords

SUMMIT study group, Cartilage, Articular, Knee Joint, Chondrocytes, Humans, Knee Injuries, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Treatment Outcome, Transplantation, Autologous, Follow-Up Studies, Prospective Studies, Adult, Middle Aged, Female, Male, Arthroplasty, Subchondral, Young Adult