Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/1009
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBell, Stuart-
dc.contributor.authorFeller, Julian-
dc.contributor.authorWhitehead, Timothy-
dc.contributor.authorDevitt, Brian-
dc.contributor.otherWebster, Kate-
dc.date2017-02-08-
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-10T01:07:30Z-
dc.date.available2017-03-10T01:07:30Z-
dc.date.issued2016-05-
dc.identifier.citationKnee. 2017 Feb 8.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0968-0160en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/1009-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to identify high quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to provide an update on the most appropriate surgical treatments for knee cartilage defects. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched three databases for RCTs comparing at least two different treatment techniques for knee cartilage defects. The search strategy used terms mapped to relevant subject headings of MeSH terms. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify studies with patients aged between 18 and 55 years with articular cartilage defects sized between one and 15cm2. Risk of bias was performed using a Coleman Methodology Score. Data extracted included patient demographics, defect characteristics, clinical outcomes, and failure rates. RESULTS: Ten articles were included (861 patients). Eight studies compared microfracture to other treatment; four to autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) or matrix-induced ACI (MACI); three to osteochondral autologous transplantation (OAT); and one to BST-Cargel. Two studies reported better results with OAT than with microfracture and one reported similar results. Two studies reported superior results with cartilage regenerative techniques than with microfracture, and two reported similar results. At 10years significantly more failures occurred with microfracture compared to OAT and with OAT compared to ACI. Larger lesions (>4.5cm2) treated with cartilage regenerative techniques (ACI/MACI) had better outcomes than with microfracture. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence from this systematic review no single treatment can be recommended for the treatment of knee cartilage defects. This highlights the need for further RCTs, preferably patient-blinded, using an appropriate reference treatment or a placebo procedure.en_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.subjectKnee Surgeryen_US
dc.subjectKnee Cartilage Defectsen_US
dc.subjectAutologous Chondrocyte Implantationen_US
dc.subjectACIen_US
dc.subjectOsteochondral Autologous Transplantationen_US
dc.subjectOATen_US
dc.subjectMatrix-induced ACIen_US
dc.subjectMACIen_US
dc.subjectCartilage Regenerative Techniquesen_US
dc.subjectSurgical Techniquesen_US
dc.subjectMicrofractureen_US
dc.subjectSurgical Outcomesen_US
dc.subjectSystematicReviewen_US
dc.subjectMusculoskeletal Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleSurgical treatments of cartilage defects of the knee: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.knee.2016.12.002en_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleThe Kneeen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28189406en_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesOrthoSport Victoria, Richmond, Australia; School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesOrthosport Victoria, Epworth Hospital Richmond, Vic 3121, Australia.en_US
dc.type.studyortrialSystematic Reviewsen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Musculoskeletal

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.