English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is used widely as a treatment for symptomatic chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee. Variations of the original periosteum-cover technique include the use of porcine-derived type I/type III collagen as a cover (ACI-C) and matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) using a collagen bilayer seeded with chondrocytes. We have performed a prospective, randomised comparison of ACI-C and MACI for the treatment of symptomatic chondral defects of the knee in 91 patients, of whom 44 received ACI-C and 47 MACI grafts. Both treatments resulted in improvement of the clinical score after one year. The mean modified Cincinnati knee score increased by 17.6 in the ACI-C group and 19.6 in the MACI group (p = 0.32). Arthroscopic assessments performed after one year showed a good to excellent International Cartilage Repair Society score in 79.2% of ACI-C and 66.6% of MACI grafts. Hyaline-like cartilage or hyaline-like cartilage with fibrocartilage was found in the biopsies of 43.9% of the ACI-C and 36.4% of the MACI grafts after one year. The rate of hypertrophy of the graft was 9% (4 of 44) in the ACI-C group and 6% (3 of 47) in the MACI group. The frequency of re-operation was 9% in each group. We conclude that the clinical, arthroscopic and histological outcomes are comparable for both ACI-C and MACI. While MACI is technically attractive, further long-term studies are required before the technique is widely adopted.

Autologous chondrocyte implantation versus matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects of the knee