Does the Choice of Acellular Scaffold and Augmentation With Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Affect Short-term Outcomes in Cartilage Repair? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Zachariah Gene Wing Ow,Hannah Li Xin Cheang,Jin Hean Koh,Joshua Zhi En Koh,Katelyn Kaye-Ling Lim,Dean Wang,Tom Minas,James L. Carey,Heng An Lin,Keng Lin Wong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211069565
IF: 4.8
2022-02-28
The American Journal of Sports Medicine
Abstract:Background: Matrix-induced chondrogenesis (MIC) is a promising treatment option for critical-size cartilage lesions of the knee; however, there exists substantial heterogeneity in the choice of acellular scaffold matrix for MIC cartilage repairs. Hypothesis: The choice of acellular matrix will not affect patient outcomes after MIC cartilage repair procedures, and the addition of concentrated bone marrow aspirate (cBMA) will improve short-term patient outcomes regardless of matrix choice. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Studies were stratified by matrix type: multilayered, single layered, and gel based. Continuous outcomes were analyzed with pairwise meta-analysis using the inverse variance model with random effects applied. Binary outcomes were analyzed as pooled proportions in a single-arm fashion; after which, reconstruction of relative risks (RRs) with confidence intervals was performed using the Katz logarithmic method. Results: A total of 876 patients were included: 469 received multilayered bioscaffolds; 238, gel-based scaffolds; and 169, single-layered scaffolds. The mean age of patients was 36.2 years (95% CI, 33.9 to 38.4), while the mean lesion size was 3.91 cm 2 (95% CI, 3.40 to 4.42). The weighted mean follow-up was 23.8 months (95% CI, 20.1 to 27.6). Multilayered bioscaffolds were most effective at improving visual analog scale scores ( P = .03; weighted mean difference [WMD], −4.44 [95% CI, −4.83 to −4.06]; P < .001). There were significantly lower risks of incomplete defect filling for gel-based scaffolds when compared with multilayered scaffolds (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.88]; P < .001) and single-layered scaffolds (RR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.81]; P = .001). Augmentation with cBMA further improved clinical scores across all scaffolds, with significant improvements in Tegner score ( P = .02), while decreasing incomplete defect filling rates as well. There was significantly greater improvement in visual analog scale scores ( P = .01) for single-layered scaffolds with cBMA augmentation (WMD, −4.88 [95% CI, −5.38 to −4.37]; P < .001) as compared with single-layered scaffolds without cBMA augmentation (WMD, −4.08 [95% CI, −4.46 to −3.71]; P < .001). All significant improvements were below their respective minimum clinically important differences. Conclusion: While cartilage repair with acellular scaffolds provides significant improvements in pain and function for patients, there is insufficient clinical evidence to suggest which scaffold material is the most superior in influencing such improvements. The enhancement of cartilage repair procedures with cBMA may provide further functional improvements and improve defect filling; however, more long-term evidence is required to evaluate the effects.