User login
When it comes to repairing knee cartilage, a new study found no significant differences between autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) and autologous chondrocyte implantation with a collagen membrane (ACI-C) as treatment options.
“If the conclusion of the present study stands and is confirmed by further clinical trials, AMIC could be considered an equal alternative to techniques based on chondrocyte transplantation for treatment of cartilage defects of the knee,” wrote Vegard Fossum, MD, of University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, and coauthors, adding that cost and comparative ease might actually make AMIC the preferred choice. The study was published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.
To evaluate outcomes of the two procedures, the researchers initiated a clinical trial of 41 patients with at least one chondral or osteochondral defect of the distal femur or patella. They were split into two groups: those treated with ACI-C (n = 21) and those treated with AMIC (n = 20). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, patients were assessed via improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), compared with baseline, along with Lysholm and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores.
After 1 and 2 years, both groups saw improvements from baseline. At 2 years, the AMIC group had an 18.1 change in KOOS, compared with 10.3 in the ACI-C group (P = .17). Two-year improvements on the Lysholm score (19.7 in AMIC, compared with 17.0 in ACI-C, P = .66) and VAS pain score (30.6 in AMIC versus 19.6 in ACI-C, P = .19) were not significantly different. Two patients in the AMIC group had undergone total knee replacement after 2 years, compared with zero in the ACI-C group.
The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including the small number of patients in each group – the initial plan was to include 80 total – and its broad inclusion criteria. However, since the aim was to compare treatment results and not evaluate effectiveness, they did not consider the broad criteria “a major limitation.”
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Fossum V et al. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Sept 17. doi: 10.1177/2325967119868212.
When it comes to repairing knee cartilage, a new study found no significant differences between autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) and autologous chondrocyte implantation with a collagen membrane (ACI-C) as treatment options.
“If the conclusion of the present study stands and is confirmed by further clinical trials, AMIC could be considered an equal alternative to techniques based on chondrocyte transplantation for treatment of cartilage defects of the knee,” wrote Vegard Fossum, MD, of University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, and coauthors, adding that cost and comparative ease might actually make AMIC the preferred choice. The study was published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.
To evaluate outcomes of the two procedures, the researchers initiated a clinical trial of 41 patients with at least one chondral or osteochondral defect of the distal femur or patella. They were split into two groups: those treated with ACI-C (n = 21) and those treated with AMIC (n = 20). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, patients were assessed via improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), compared with baseline, along with Lysholm and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores.
After 1 and 2 years, both groups saw improvements from baseline. At 2 years, the AMIC group had an 18.1 change in KOOS, compared with 10.3 in the ACI-C group (P = .17). Two-year improvements on the Lysholm score (19.7 in AMIC, compared with 17.0 in ACI-C, P = .66) and VAS pain score (30.6 in AMIC versus 19.6 in ACI-C, P = .19) were not significantly different. Two patients in the AMIC group had undergone total knee replacement after 2 years, compared with zero in the ACI-C group.
The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including the small number of patients in each group – the initial plan was to include 80 total – and its broad inclusion criteria. However, since the aim was to compare treatment results and not evaluate effectiveness, they did not consider the broad criteria “a major limitation.”
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Fossum V et al. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Sept 17. doi: 10.1177/2325967119868212.
When it comes to repairing knee cartilage, a new study found no significant differences between autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) and autologous chondrocyte implantation with a collagen membrane (ACI-C) as treatment options.
“If the conclusion of the present study stands and is confirmed by further clinical trials, AMIC could be considered an equal alternative to techniques based on chondrocyte transplantation for treatment of cartilage defects of the knee,” wrote Vegard Fossum, MD, of University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, and coauthors, adding that cost and comparative ease might actually make AMIC the preferred choice. The study was published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.
To evaluate outcomes of the two procedures, the researchers initiated a clinical trial of 41 patients with at least one chondral or osteochondral defect of the distal femur or patella. They were split into two groups: those treated with ACI-C (n = 21) and those treated with AMIC (n = 20). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, patients were assessed via improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), compared with baseline, along with Lysholm and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores.
After 1 and 2 years, both groups saw improvements from baseline. At 2 years, the AMIC group had an 18.1 change in KOOS, compared with 10.3 in the ACI-C group (P = .17). Two-year improvements on the Lysholm score (19.7 in AMIC, compared with 17.0 in ACI-C, P = .66) and VAS pain score (30.6 in AMIC versus 19.6 in ACI-C, P = .19) were not significantly different. Two patients in the AMIC group had undergone total knee replacement after 2 years, compared with zero in the ACI-C group.
The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including the small number of patients in each group – the initial plan was to include 80 total – and its broad inclusion criteria. However, since the aim was to compare treatment results and not evaluate effectiveness, they did not consider the broad criteria “a major limitation.”
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Fossum V et al. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Sept 17. doi: 10.1177/2325967119868212.
FROM THE ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE