Comparative efficacy of osteochondral autologous transplantation and microfracture in the knee: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION

More than 19% of patients undergoing knee arthroscopies suffers from articular cartilage defects. The chondral or osteochondral lesion has negative impacts on the knee joints function and the life quality of patients. However, the treatment remains challenging as hyaline cartilage is not renewable. The purpose of this study was to systematically analyze the data of randomized controlled trials for comparing the postoperative outcomes between osteochondral autologous transplantation (OAT) and microfracture (MF) procedure. We hypothesized that the outcomes were better in OAT than MF procedure.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the EMBASE, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The outcome measures include: the rate of excellent or good results, the rate of return to sports, the failure rate, osteoarthritis rate, International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) score, Lysholm Knee Score, and Tegner scale. The statistical analysis was completed using Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.3) software.

RESULTS

The systematic search identified 7 studies with a total of 346 patients. The pooled result showed significant differences between the two groups in the rate of return to sports and failure. The following outcome scores showed significant improvement (pre- vs postoperatively): Lysholm score (p = 0.02), Tegner scale (p < 0.00001), and ICRS score (p < 0.00001). The differences were not significant in the excellent or good results and the rate of osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSION

The patients in OAT group may return to play quicker, even return to pre-injury level of activity compared to the MF group. OAT is better than MF procedure in accordance with Lysholm score, Tegner score, ICRS score, and the rate of failure. However, few studies have reported long-term outcomes and there has no uniform criteria for safe return to sports. Further research is needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.