Bone marrow aspirate concentrate injections provide similar results versus viscosupplementation up to 24 months of follow-up in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. A randomized controlled trial
Angelo Boffa,Alessandro Di Martino,Luca Andriolo,Roberto De Filippis,Alberto Poggi,Elizaveta Kon,Stefano Zaffagnini,Giuseppe Filardo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06793-4
2021-11-12
Abstract:PurposeThe purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to compare clinical improvement and radiographic findings up to 2 years of follow-up of a single intra-articular injection of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) versus hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The hypothesis was that BMAC injection could lead to better clinical and radiographic results compared to viscosupplementation.MethodsPatients with bilateral knee OA were randomized to one intra-articular injection of tibial-derived BMAC in one knee and one HA injection in the contralateral knee. Sixty patients were enrolled, and 56 were studied up to the final follow-up (35 men, 21 women, mean age 57.8 ± 8.9 years), for a total of 112 knees. Patients were evaluated before the injection and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months with the IKDC subjective score, VAS for pain, and the KOOS score. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient treatment judgement, and adverse events were documented, as well as bilateral X-Rays (Rosenberg view) before and after treatment.ResultsNo severe adverse events nor differences were reported in terms of mild adverse events (7.1% vs 5.4%, p = ns) and treatment failures (10.7% vs 12.5%, p = ns) in BMAC and HA groups, respectively. The IKDC subjective score improved from baseline to all follow-ups for BMAC (p < 0.0005), while it improved up to 12 months (p < 0.0005) and then decreased at 24 months (p = 0.030) for HA. Compared to HA, BMAC showed a higher improvement for VAS pain at 12 (2.2 ± 2.6 vs 1.7 ± 2.5, p = 0.041) and 24 months (2.2 ± 2.6 vs 1.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.002). The analysis based on OA severity confirmed this difference only in Kellgren–Lawrence 1–2 knees, while comparable results were observed in moderate/severe OA. Radiographic evaluation did not show knee OA deterioration for both treatment groups, without intergroup differences.ConclusionBMAC did not demonstrate a clinically significant superiority at short-term compared to viscosupplementation, reporting overall comparable results in terms of clinical scores, failures, adverse events, radiographic evaluation, MCID achievement, and patient treatment judgment. However, while HA results decreased over time, BMAC presented more durable results in mild OA knees.Level of evidenceLevel I.
surgery,orthopedics,sport sciences