Fu Freddie H, Zurakowski David, Browne Jon E, Mandelbaum Bert, Erggelet Christoph, Moseley J Bruce, Anderson Allen F, Micheli Lyle J
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pennsylvania, USA.
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Nov;33(11):1658-66. doi: 10.1177/0363546505275148. Epub 2005 Aug 10.
Studies that compare the effectiveness of different cartilage repair treatments are needed to update treatment algorithms.
Autologous chondrocyte implantation provides greater improvement in overall condition score than does debridement at a minimum of 3 years' follow-up.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Cohorts for debridement and autologous chondrocyte implantation each included 58 Cartilage Repair Registry patients who met study criteria. A retrospective analysis was performed on prospectively collected baseline and follow-up data.
Patients in the autologous chondrocyte implantation and debridement groups had similar demographics and chondral lesions at baseline. However, more autologous chondrocyte implantation patients failed a previous debridement or marrow stimulation procedure than did debridement patients. Follow-up outcome assessments were completed by 54 autologous chondrocyte implantation patients and 42 debridement patients. Eighty-one percent of the autologous chondrocyte implantation patients and 60% of the debridement patients reported median improvements of 5 points and 2 points, respectively, in the overall condition score. Autologous chondrocyte implantation patients also reported greater improvements in the median pain and swelling scores than did debridement patients. The treatment failure rate was the same for both autologous chondrocyte implantation and debridement patients. Eighteen autologous chondrocyte implantation patients and 1 debridement patient had at least 1 subsequent operation.
Although patients treated with debridement for symptomatic, large, focal, chondral defects of the distal femur had some functional improvement at follow-up, patients who received autologous chondrocyte implantations obtained higher levels of knee function and had greater relief from pain and swelling at 3 years.
需要进行比较不同软骨修复治疗效果的研究,以更新治疗方案。
在至少3年的随访中,自体软骨细胞植入比清创术能使总体状况评分有更大改善。
队列研究;证据等级,3级。
清创术队列和自体软骨细胞植入队列各纳入58例符合研究标准的软骨修复注册患者。对前瞻性收集的基线和随访数据进行回顾性分析。
自体软骨细胞植入组和清创术组患者在基线时的人口统计学特征和软骨损伤情况相似。然而,与清创术患者相比,更多接受自体软骨细胞植入的患者之前的清创术或骨髓刺激手术失败。54例自体软骨细胞植入患者和42例清创术患者完成了随访结果评估。分别有81%的自体软骨细胞植入患者和60%的清创术患者报告总体状况评分中位数改善了5分和2分。自体软骨细胞植入患者报告的疼痛和肿胀评分中位数改善也比清创术患者更大。自体软骨细胞植入患者和清创术患者的治疗失败率相同。18例自体软骨细胞植入患者和1例清创术患者至少进行了1次后续手术。
尽管因有症状的股骨远端大的局灶性软骨缺损接受清创术治疗的患者在随访时有一定功能改善,但接受自体软骨细胞植入的患者在3年时膝关节功能水平更高,疼痛和肿胀缓解更明显。