Devitt Brian M, Bell Stuart W, Webster Kate E, Feller Julian A, Whitehead Tim S
OrthoSport Victoria, Richmond, Australia.
School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Knee. 2017 Jun;24(3):508-517. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2016.12.002. Epub 2017 Feb 8.
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.
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 15cm. Risk of bias was performed using a Coleman Methodology Score. Data extracted included patient demographics, defect characteristics, clinical outcomes, and failure rates.
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 (>4.5cm) treated with cartilage regenerative techniques (ACI/MACI) had better outcomes than with microfracture.
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.
本系统评价的目的是识别高质量的随机对照试验(RCT),并提供关于膝关节软骨缺损最合适手术治疗方法的最新信息。
两名评价者独立检索三个数据库,以查找比较至少两种不同膝关节软骨缺损治疗技术的RCT。检索策略使用映射到医学主题词表(MeSH)相关主题词的术语。采用严格的纳入和排除标准,以识别年龄在18至55岁之间、关节软骨缺损大小在1至15厘米之间的患者的研究。使用科尔曼方法评分进行偏倚风险评估。提取的数据包括患者人口统计学特征、缺损特征、临床结局和失败率。
纳入10篇文章(861例患者)。8项研究比较了微骨折与其他治疗方法;4项比较了微骨折与自体软骨细胞植入(ACI)或基质诱导ACI(MACI);3项比较了微骨折与自体骨软骨移植(OAT);1项比较了微骨折与BST-Cargel。两项研究报告OAT的结果优于微骨折,一项报告结果相似。两项研究报告软骨再生技术的结果优于微骨折,两项报告结果相似。在10年时,与OAT相比,微骨折的失败发生率显著更高;与ACI相比,OAT的失败发生率显著更高。用软骨再生技术(ACI/MACI)治疗较大的缺损(>4.5厘米)比微骨折的效果更好。
基于本系统评价的证据,无法推荐单一治疗方法用于膝关节软骨缺损的治疗。这凸显了进一步开展RCT的必要性,最好是采用适当的对照治疗或安慰剂程序使患者 blinded。