Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(07): 707-717
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716552
Original Article

Microfracture versus Enhanced Microfracture Techniques in Knee Cartilage Restoration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hong-Jie Wen
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China
,
Li-Bo Yuan
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 920th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China
,
Hong-Bo Tan   ∗
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 920th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China
,
Yong-Qing Xu   ∗
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 920th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (H0607) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant number: 2017YFC1103904).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the microfracture (MFx) and microfracture augmented (MFx + ) techniques for the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from 1 January, 1950 to 1 May, 2019. RevMan5.3 was used to perform statistical analysis. Relative risk was calculated for binary variables, and weighted mean difference and standardized mean difference (SMD) were measured for continuous variables. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of each variable was assessed. Thirteen trials with 635 patients were included. There was a significant difference in the Lysholm's score (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.01–0.50, p = 0.04) and magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score (SMD = 14.01, 95% CI: 8.01–20.02, p < 0.01) between the MFx and MFx+ groups. There was no significant difference in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (SMD =  − 12.40, 95% CI: −27.50 to 32.71, p = 0.11), International Knee Documentation Committee score (SMD = 8.67, 95% CI: −0.92 to 18.27, p = 0.08), visual analog scale score (SMD =  − 0.20, 95% CI: −2.45 to 0.96, p = 0.57), Tegner's score (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI: −0.67 to 1.18, p = 0.59), modified Cincinnati's score (SMD =  − 4.58, 95% CI: −14.31 to 5.14, p = 0.36) and modified International Cartilage Repair Society pain score (SMD = 0.09, 95% CI: −0.37 to 0.55, p = 0.70) between the groups. Results of the pooled analyses of the MFx+ and MFx groups suggested that the MFx+ technique is slightly superior to the MFx technique for the treatment of articular cartilage defects of the knee. Further research is required and future studies should include assessments of the outcomes at long-term follow-ups. Trial registration number is PROSPERO CRD42019135803.

Keywords

microfracture - enhanced microfracture techniques - knee cartilage restoration - meta-analysis

Note

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.


Authors' Contributions

H.J.W. participated in the conception and design of this study. H.J.W., L.B.Y., and H.B.T. performed the acquisition of data. L.B.Y. and H.J.W. performed the statistical analyses. H.B.T. was involved in the interpretation of data. H.J.W. drafted the manuscript. Y.Q.X. and H.B.T. revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.


∗ Hong-Bo Tan and Yong-Qing Xu are co-corresponding authors.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 06 January 2020

Accepted: 29 July 2020

Article published online:
20 September 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Dowthwaite GP, Bishop JC, Redman SN. et al. The surface of articular cartilage contains a progenitor cell population. J Cell Sci 2004; 117 (Pt 6): 889-897
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Alford JW, Cole BJ. Cartilage restoration, Part 1: basic science, historical perspective, patient evaluation, and treatment options. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (02) 295-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 McNickle AG, Provencher MT, Cole BJ. Overview of existing cartilage repair technology. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2008; 16 (04) 196-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Steadman JR, Miller BS, Karas SG, Schlegel TF, Briggs KK, Hawkins RJ. The microfracture technique in the treatment of full-thickness chondral lesions of the knee in National Football League players. J Knee Surg 2003; 16 (02) 83-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bekkers JE, Inklaar M, Saris DB. Treatment selection in articular cartilage lesions of the knee: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (Suppl. 01) 148S-155S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Siclari A, Mascaro G, Kaps C, Boux E. A 5-year follow-up after cartilage repair in the knee using a platelet-rich plasma-immersed polymer-based implant. Open Orthop J 2014; 8: 346-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Arshi A, Fabricant PD, Go DE, Williams RJ, McAllister DR, Jones KJ. Can biologic augmentation improve clinical outcomes following microfracture for symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee? A systematic review. Cartilage 2018; 9 (02) 146-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Enea D, Cecconi S, Calcagno S, Busilacchi A, Manzotti S, Gigante A. One-step cartilage repair in the knee: collagen-covered microfracture and autologous bone marrow concentrate. A pilot study. Knee 2015; 22 (01) 30-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gobbi A, Whyte GP. One-stage cartilage repair using a hyaluronic acid-based scaffold with activated bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells compared with microfracture: five-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (11) 2846-2854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Steinwachs M, Cavalcanti N, Mauuva Venkatesh Reddy S, Werner C, Tschopp D, Choudur HN. Arthroscopic and open treatment of cartilage lesions with BST-CARGEL scaffold and microfracture: a cohort study of consecutive patients. Knee 2019; 26 (01) 174-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Carter AH, Guttierez N, Subhawong TK. et al. MR imaging of BioCartilage augmented microfracture surgery utilizing 2D MOCART and KOOS scores. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2018; 9 (02) 146-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Benthien JP, Behrens P. The treatment of chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee with autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC): method description and recent developments. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (08) 1316-1319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dorotka R, Bindreiter U, Macfelda K, Windberger U, Nehrer S. Marrow stimulation and chondrocyte transplantation using a collagen matrix for cartilage repair. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005; 13 (08) 655-664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dorotka R, Windberger U, Macfelda K, Bindreiter U, Toma C, Nehrer S. Repair of articular cartilage defects treated by microfracture and a three-dimensional collagen matrix. Biomaterials 2005; 26 (17) 3617-3629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Altman RD, Manjoo A, Fierlinger A, Niazi F, Nicholls M. The mechanism of action for hyaluronic acid treatment in the osteoarthritic knee: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015; 16 (16) 321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gunes T, Bostan B, Erdem M, Koseoglu RD, Asci M, Sen C. Intraarticular hyaluronic acid injection after microfracture technique for the management of full-thickness cartilage defects does not improve the quality of repair tissue. Cartilage 2012; 3 (01) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Miyakoshi N, Kobayashi M, Nozaka K, Okada K, Shimada Y, Itoi E. Effects of intraarticular administration of basic fibroblast growth factor with hyaluronic acid on osteochondral defects of the knee in rabbits. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005; 125 (10) 683-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Strauss EJ, Barker JU, Kercher JS, Cole BJ, Mithoefer K. Augmentation strategies following the microfracture technique for repair of focal chondral defects. Cartilage 2010; 1 (02) 145-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Guney A, Yurdakul E, Karaman I, Bilal O, Kafadar IH, Oner M. Medium-term outcomes of mosaicplasty versus arthroscopic microfracture with or without platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (04) 1293-1298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 de Girolamo L, Bertolini G, Cervellin M, Sozzi G, Volpi P. Treatment of chondral defects of the knee with one step matrix-assisted technique enhanced by autologous concentrated bone marrow: in vitro characterisation of mesenchymal stem cells from iliac crest and subchondral bone. Injury 2010; 41 (11) 1172-1177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Karnovsky SC, DeSandis B, Haleem AM, Sofka CM, O'Malley M, Drakos MC. Comparison of juvenile allogenous articular cartilage and bone marrow aspirate concentrate versus microfracture with and without bone marrow aspirate concentrate in arthroscopic treatment of talar osteochondral lesions. Foot Ankle Int 2018; 39 (04) 393-405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Murphy EP, McGoldrick NP, Curtin M, Kearns SR. A prospective evaluation of bone marrow aspirate concentrate and microfracture in the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus. Foot Ankle Surg 2019; 25 (04) 441-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lee KBWV, Wang VT, Chan YH, Hui JH. A novel, minimally-invasive technique of cartilage repair in the human knee using arthroscopic microfracture and injections of mesenchymal stem cells and hyaluronic acid--a prospective comparative study on safety and short-term efficacy. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2012; 41 (11) 511-517
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nguyen PD, Tran TD, Nguyen HT. et al. Comparative clinical observation of arthroscopic microfracture in the presence and absence of a stromal vascular fraction injection for osteoarthritis. Stem Cells Transl Med 2017; 6 (01) 187-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chung JY, Lee DH, Kim TH, Kwack KS, Yoon KH, Min BH. Cartilage extra-cellular matrix biomembrane for the enhancement of microfractured defects. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (06) 1249-1259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Anders SVM, Frick H, Gellissen JA. Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis (AMIC®) to Microfracture-Analysis of 1- and 2-Year Follow-Up Data of 2 Centers. The Open Orthopaedics Journal 2013; 07 (Suppl 1: M4) 133-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mancò A, Goderecci R, Rughetti A. et al. Microfracture versus microfracture and platelet-rich plasma: arthroscopic treatment of knee chondral lesions. A two-year follow-up study. Joints 2016; 4 (03) 142-147
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sofu H, Kockara N, Oner A, Camurcu Y, Issın A, Sahin V. Results of hyaluronic acid-based cell-free scaffold application in combination with microfracture for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the knee: 2-year comparative study. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (01) 209-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M. PRISMA-P Group. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 350: g7647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25 (09) 603-605
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Volz M, Schaumburger J, Frick H, Grifka J, Anders S. A randomized controlled trial demonstrating sustained benefit of autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis over microfracture at five years. Int Orthop 2017; 41 (04) 797-804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Stanish WD, McCormack R, Forriol F. et al. Novel scaffold-based BST-CarGel treatment results in superior cartilage repair compared with microfracture in a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (18) 1640-1650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Shive MS, Stanish WD, McCormack R. et al. BST-CarGel® treatment maintains cartilage repair superiority over microfracture at 5 years in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Cartilage 2015; 6 (02) 62-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Pipino G, Risitano S, Alviano F. et al. Microfractures and hydrogel scaffolds in the treatment of osteochondral knee defects: a clinical and histological evaluation. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2019; 10 (01) 67-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Manunta AF, Manconi A. The treatment of chondral lesions of the knee with the microfracture technique and platelet-rich plasma. Joints 2014; 1 (04) 167-170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lee GW, Son J-H, Kim J-D, Jung GH. Is platelet-rich plasma able to enhance the results of arthroscopic microfracture in early osteoarthritis and cartilage lesion over 40 years of age?. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2013; 23 (05) 581-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Koh YG, Kwon OR, Kim YS, Choi YJ, Tak DH. Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells with microfracture versus microfracture alone: 2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (01) 97-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Pak KH, In Y. Collagen augmentation improves the quality of cartilage repair after microfracture in patients undergoing high tibial osteotomy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (08) 1845-1855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Chen H, Sun J, Hoemann CD. et al. Drilling and microfracture lead to different bone structure and necrosis during bone-marrow stimulation for cartilage repair. J Orthop Res 2009; 27 (11) 1432-1438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Gill TJ, Asnis PD, Berkson EM. The treatment of articular cartilage defects using the microfracture technique. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006; 36 (10) 728-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Eldracher M, Orth P, Cucchiarini M, Pape D, Madry H. Small subchondral drill holes improve marrow stimulation of articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (11) 2741-2750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Mundi R, Bedi A, Chow L. et al. Cartilage restoration of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level 1 studies. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (07) 1888-1895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Negrin LL, Vécsei V. Do meta-analyses reveal time-dependent differences between the clinical outcomes achieved by microfracture and autologous chondrocyte implantation in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee?. J Orthop Sci 2013; 18 (06) 940-948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Redondo ML, Naveen NB, Liu JN, Tauro TM, Southworth TM, Cole BJ. Preservation of knee articular cartilage. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2018; 26 (04) e23-e30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Richter DL, Tanksley JA, Miller MD. Osteochondral autograft transplantation: a review of the surgical technique and outcomes. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2016; 24 (02) 74-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Mithoefer K, McAdams T, Williams RJ, Kreuz PC, Mandelbaum BR. Clinical efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage repair in the knee: an evidence-based systematic analysis. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (10) 2053-2063
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Krych AJ, Harnly HW, Rodeo SA, Williams III RJ. Activity levels are higher after osteochondral autograft transfer mosaicplasty than after microfracture for articular cartilage defects of the knee: a retrospective comparative study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (11) 971-978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Saris D, Price A, Widuchowski W. SUMMIT study group. et al. Matrix-applied characterized autologous cultured chondrocytes versus microfracture: two-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (06) 1384-1394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Solheim E, Øyen J, Hegna J, Austgulen OK, Harlem T, Strand T. Microfracture treatment of single or multiple articular cartilage defects of the knee: a 5-year median follow-up of 110 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18 (04) 504-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Gudas R, Gudaite A, Pocius A. et al. Ten-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized clinical study of mosaic osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of osteochondral defects in the knee joint of athletes. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (11) 2499-2508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 D'Antimo C, Biggi F, Borean A, Di Fabio S, Pirola I. Combining a novel leucocyte-platelet-concentrated membrane and an injectable collagen scaffold in a single-step AMIC procedure to treat chondral lesions of the knee: a preliminary retrospective study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2017; 27 (05) 673-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Fortier LA, Chapman HS, Pownder SL. et al. BioCartilage improves cartilage repair compared with microfracture alone in an equine model of full-thickness cartilage loss. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (09) 2366-2374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar