4.6 Article

Articular cartilage engineering with Hyalograft® C -: 3-year clinical results

Journal

CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
Volume -, Issue 435, Pages 96-105

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000165737.87628.5b

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of tissue engineering for cartilage repair has emerged as a potential therapeutic option and has led to the development of Hyalograft(R) C, a tissue-engineered graft composed of autologous chondrocytes grown on a scaffold entirely made of HYAFF(R) 11, an esterified derivative of hyaluronic acid. Here we present the results of an ongoing multicenter clinical study conducted with the primary objective to investigate the subjective symptomatic, functional and health-related quality of life outcomes of patients treated with Hyalograft(R) C. Clinical results on the cohort of 141 patients with followup assessments ranging from 2 to 5 years (average followup time: 38 months), are reported. At followup 91.5% of patients improved according to the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective evaluation; 76% and 88% of patients had no pain and mobility problems respectively assessed by the EuroQol-EQ5D measure. Furthermore, 95.7% of the patients had their treated knee normal or nearly normal as assessed by the surgeon; cartilage repair was graded arthroscopically as normal or nearly normal in 96.4% of the scored knees; the majority of the second-look biopsies of the grafted site histologically were assessed as hyalinelike. Importantly, a very limited complication rate was recorded in this study. The positive clinical results obtained indicate that Hyalograft(R) C is a safe and effective therapeutic option for the treatment of articular cartilage lesions. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level III-2 (retrospective cohort study). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available