4.3 Article

Matrix-Associated and Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation in the Ankle: Clinical and MRI Follow-up after 2 to 11 Years

期刊

CARTILAGE
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 81-91

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1947603510381095

关键词

ACI; autologous chondrocyte transplantation; ankle; cartilage repair; T2 mapping; 3T

资金

  1. Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of the City of Vienna [08011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: New matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) techniques may facilitate the treatment of chondral defects in talar cartilage and provide good clinical outcome in the long term. The aim of this prospective case series was to monitor the clinical outcome after autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT) and MACT in the ankle to gain data on the mid-term efficacy of the procedure. Methods: Seventeen cases of talar cartilage defects were assessed with the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS), a modified Cincinnati score, and a subjective ankle-hindfoot score (AHS) at a mean of 61 (24-135) months after surgery. Nine patients consented to an additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exam, including T2 mapping at 3T. ACT was carried out with a periosteal flap (4 cases) or with a matrix-assisted ACT technique (Hyalograft C; 13 cases). Results: Significant improvement was found in all cases. The AOFAS improved from 50.0 to 87.3, the AHS from 43.8 to 84.1, and the modified Cincinnati score from 2.9 to 6.9. MRI data demonstrated good defect filling, and T2 mapping results indicated that the collagen and water content of the repair tissue was comparable to adjacent cartilage. Discussion: MACT and ACT in the ankle can provide good and excellent long-term outcome and resulted in repair tissue with T2 properties similar to native cartilage in the majority of cases. Matrix-assisted implantation with the hyaluronan matrix allows for a less invasive surgical procedure. Level of evidence: 4; prospective case series study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据