J Knee Surg 2018; 31(04): 341-347
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603798
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Osteochondral Autologous Transplantation Compared to Microfracture for Treating Osteochondral Defect: An Updated Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Zhao Haien*
High-Tech Institute of Xi'an, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
Orthopedic Department, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
,
Wu Jiachang*
Orthopedic Department, Affiliated Langdong Hospital of Guangxi Medical University
,
Li Qiang
Department of Radiology, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
,
Mei Yufeng
Orthopedic Department, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
,
Ji Zhenwei
Orthopedic Department, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 February 2017

02 May 2017

Publication Date:
23 June 2017 (eFirst)

Abstract

Various techniques have proven to be effective for treating articular cartilage defect of the knee joint, but knowledge regarding which method is best still remains uncertain. Osteochondral autologous transplantation (OAT) provides hyaline or hyaline-like repair for articular defects, whereas microfracture (MF) provides fibrocartilage repair tissue. To compare the OAT with MF procedure for the treatment of articular cartilage defect, we present an update of previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

We searched for the published results of relevant trials. Then, we pooled the outcome measures of the included trials for analysis. The outcome measures assessed in this study included the number of patients who reached excellent or good results, the patients returning to the activity, the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) scores, the failure rate, and the osteoarthritis rate. Six studies and 294 patients were identified as eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis. The pooled result showed that there was no significant difference in the excellent or good results (relative risks [RRs], 1.27; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.95 to 1.70; p = 0.11) and the rate of osteoarthritis (RRs, 0.64; 95% CIs, 0.37 to 1.13; p = 0.12). There were significant differences between the two groups in the scores of ICRS (mean differences [MDs], 12.51; 95% CIs, 10.55 to 14.47; p = 0.00001), the patients returning to activity (RRs, 2.04; 95% CIs, 1.36 to 3.07; p = 0.0006), and in the failure rate (RRs, 0.23; 95% CIs, 0.11 to 0.49; p = 0.0001). OAT has more advantages compared with MF procedure in referring to the index of return to activity, the scores of ICRS, and the rate of failure. However, the limitations restrict the generalizability of this study, and larger, sufficiently powered studies are necessary to evaluate the efficiency of OAT compared with MF procedure in the future.

* The authors Zhao Haien and Wu Jiachang contributed equally to this article.