One-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current review
Daniel Meyerkort, David Wood, Ming-Hao ZhengCenter for Orthopaedic Research, School of Surgery and Pathology, University of Western Australia, Perth, AustraliaIntroduction: Articular cartilage has a poor capacity for regeneration if damaged. Various methods have been used to restore the articular su...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Dove Medical Press
2010-10-01
|
Series: | Orthopedic Research and Reviews |
Online Access: | http://www.dovepress.com/one-stage-vs-two-stage-cartilage-repair-a-current-review-a5535 |
id |
doaj-0753a89359774c888edcc02b8a5b881d |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-0753a89359774c888edcc02b8a5b881d2020-11-24T22:27:58ZengDove Medical PressOrthopedic Research and Reviews1179-14622010-10-012010default95106One-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current reviewDaniel MeyerkortDavid WoodMing-Hao ZhengDaniel Meyerkort, David Wood, Ming-Hao ZhengCenter for Orthopaedic Research, School of Surgery and Pathology, University of Western Australia, Perth, AustraliaIntroduction: 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 http://www.dovepress.com/one-stage-vs-two-stage-cartilage-repair-a-current-review-a5535 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Daniel Meyerkort David Wood Ming-Hao Zheng |
spellingShingle |
Daniel Meyerkort David Wood Ming-Hao Zheng One-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current review Orthopedic Research and Reviews |
author_facet |
Daniel Meyerkort David Wood Ming-Hao Zheng |
author_sort |
Daniel Meyerkort |
title |
One-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current review |
title_short |
One-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current review |
title_full |
One-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current review |
title_fullStr |
One-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current review |
title_full_unstemmed |
One-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current review |
title_sort |
one-stage vs two-stage cartilage repair: a current review |
publisher |
Dove Medical Press |
series |
Orthopedic Research and Reviews |
issn |
1179-1462 |
publishDate |
2010-10-01 |
description |
Daniel Meyerkort, David Wood, Ming-Hao ZhengCenter for Orthopaedic Research, School of Surgery and Pathology, University of Western Australia, Perth, AustraliaIntroduction: 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 |
url |
http://www.dovepress.com/one-stage-vs-two-stage-cartilage-repair-a-current-review-a5535 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT danielmeyerkort onestagevstwostagecartilagerepairacurrentreview AT davidwood onestagevstwostagecartilagerepairacurrentreview AT minghaozheng onestagevstwostagecartilagerepairacurrentreview |
_version_ |
1725748247430955008 |