Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2025
Matrix-assisted Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation for Remodeling and Repair of Chondral Defects in a Rabbit Model
Published on: May 21, 2013
Comparison of Hydrogel-Based Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Versus Microfracture: A Propensity Score
Philipp Niemeyer1,2, Peter Angele3,4, Robert C Spiro5
1OCM Orthopädische Chirurgie München, Munich, Germany.
Background:
Few studies exist for large defects comparing matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (M-ACI) with other cartilage repair methods due to the limited availability of suitable comparator treatments.
Purpose:
To compare the clinical efficacy of a novel hydrogel-based M-ACI method (NOVOCART Inject plus) versus microfracture (MFx) in patients with knee cartilage defects.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
Propensity score matched-pair analysis was used to compare the 24-month outcomes between the M-ACI treatment group from a previous single-arm phase 3 study and the MFx control group from another phase 3 study. Patients were matched based on preoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), symptom duration, previous knee surgeries, age, and sex, resulting in 144 patients in the matched-pair set (72 patients per group). The primary endpoint was the change in least-squares means (ΔLSmeans) for the KOOS from baseline to the 24-month assessment.
Results:
Defect sizes in the M-ACI group were significantly larger than in the MFx group (6.4 versus 3.7 cm2). Other differences included defect location (no patellar or tibial defects in the MFx group), number of defects (33.3% with 2 defects in the M-ACI group versus 9.7% in the MFx group), and defect cause (more patients with degenerative lesions in the M-ACI group). The M-ACI group had higher posttreatment KOOS (M-ACI versus MFX: 81.8 ± 16.8 versus 73.0 ± 20.6 points) and KOOS ΔLSmeans from baseline to 24 months posttreatment (M-ACI versus MFX: 36.9 versus 26.9 points). Treatment contrasts in KOOS ΔLSmeans from baseline indicated statistical significance in favor of M-ACI from 3 to 24 months posttreatment (P = .0026). Significant and clinically meaningful differences in favor of M-ACI at 24 months were also found regarding International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score ΔLSmeans from baseline (37.8 versus 30.4 points; P = .0334), KOOS responder rates at 24 months (≥10-point improvement from baseline; 94.4% versus 65.3%; P < .0001), IKDC responder rates at 24 months (>20.5-point improvement from baseline; 83.3% versus 61.1%, P = .0126) and MOCART (Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue) score in a subgroup of patients (LS means, 86.9 versus 69.1; P = .0096).
Conclusion:
In this exploratory analysis, M-ACI using an in situ crosslinked hydrogel demonstrated superior clinical and structural (MOCART) 24-month outcomes compared with MFx in patients with knee cartilage defects.
