Arthroscopic Autologous Minced Cartilage Implantation of Cartilage Defects in the Knee: A 2-Year Follow-up of 62 Patients

Abstract

Background: Symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee joint are frequently diagnosed and can be treated with different available surgical methods. Nevertheless, there is currently no gold standard treatment for all indications. Minced cartilage implantation is increasingly coming into focus as a refined surgical technique. Purpose: To investigate the 2-year clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopic autologous minced cartilage repair with the standardized commercial implantation system AutoCart. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 62 consecutive patients were included and prospectively evaluated preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Outcomes were assessed using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Tegner activity scale at all follow-up time points. The examination of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed using the Area Measurement and Depth and Underlying Structures (AMADEUS) score, and the examination of MRI at 24 months was performed using the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) 2.0 score. Results: < .001). The secondary outcome measures of the VAS, WOMAC, and SANE showed a similar pattern, with score improvements in the follow-up period compared to baseline. The mean AMADEUS score was 64.75 ± 13.87, while the mean MOCART 2.0 score was 62.88 ± 9.86, among 20 available patients. The revision surgery rate was 8.1% mainly because of hypertrophy (6.5%). Conclusion: Among this cohort of patients, minced cartilage implantation demonstrated satisfying 2-year outcomes with increased patient-reported outcome measure scores from 3 to 24 months postoperatively. Regenerated tissue quality on MRI was comparable to that using other cartilage repair methods and showed no associations with patient characteristics or patient-reported outcome measures. Larger cohorts, longer postoperative intervals, and comparable trials are needed to further evaluate the role of this technique in treating cartilage defects.