These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Evidence.
    Author: Gao L, Orth P, Cucchiarini M, Madry H.
    Journal: Am J Sports Med; 2019 Jan; 47(1):222-231. PubMed ID: 29161138.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The addition of a type I/III collagen membrane in cartilage defects treated with microfracture has been advocated for cartilage repair, termed "autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis" (AMIC). PURPOSE: To examine the current clinical evidence regarding AMIC for focal chondral defects. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies of AMIC for articular cartilage repair, written in English. Relative data were extracted and critically analyzed. PRISMA guidelines were applied, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by the modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS), and aggregate data were generated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight clinical articles were included: 12 studies (245 patients) of knee cartilage defects, 12 studies (214 patients) of ankle cartilage defects, and 4 studies (308 patients) of hip cartilage defects. The CMS demonstrated a suboptimal study design in the majority of published studies (knee, 57.8; ankle, 55.3; hip, 57.7). For the knee, 1 study reported significant clinical improvements for AMIC compared with microfracture for medium-sized cartilage defects (mean defect size 3.6 cm2) after 5 years (level of evidence, 1). No study compared AMIC with matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) in the knee. For the ankle, no clinical trial was available comparing AMIC versus microfracture or ACI. In the hip, only one analysis (level of evidence, 3) compared AMIC with microfracture for acetabular lesions. For medium-sized acetabular defects, one study (level of evidence, 3) found no significant differences between AMIC and ACI at 5 years. Specific aspects not appropriately discussed in the currently available literature include patient-related factors, membrane fixation, and defect properties. No treatment-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This systematic review reveals a paucity of high-quality, randomized controlled studies testing the AMIC technique versus established procedures such as microfracture or ACI. Evidence is insufficient to recommend joint-specific indications for AMIC. Additional nonbiased, high-powered, randomized controlled clinical trials will provide better clinical and structural long-term evidence, thus helping to define possible indications for this technique.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]