Table 3.

Long-term survival of MAT

Study	Survival at 5-year time periods
	5 years	10 years	15 years	20 years
Kim et al. [23] subgroup with ≥ 8 years follow-up (%)		98	93
Parkinson et al. [35]
Group 1 (%)	97
Group 2 (%)	82
Group 3 (%)	62
Mahmoud [27]	92% (from graph)	75% (from graph)
McCormick et al. [29]	95%a	93% (from graph)
Noyes and Barber-Westin [32]
Worst case (%)	77	45	19
Clinical failures (%)	84	64	50
Saltzman et al. MAT + ACL [44] (%)	84	45
Van der Wal et al. [53]	95% (from graph)	67% (76% lateral, 56% medial)	53%
Van der Straeten et al. [52]	80%	75%	50%	15% at 24 years
Verdonk et al. [54]			At 14 years
Lateral MATs (n = 61) (%)	90	70	70
Medial MATs (n = 39) (%)	86	74	53
Medial MATs with high tibial osteotomy (n = 13) (%)	100	83	83

Noyes and Barber-Westin [32] worst case includes some patients with no symptoms related to the transplant but who have MRI grade-3 signal intensity, major extrusion or a tear, signs of a meniscal tear on clinical examination; or radiographic complete loss of joint space. Clinical failures include transplant removal or revision, total or unicompartmental knee replacement, osteotomy, or pain with daily activities

Figures for Stone and Van der Straeten 5, 10 and 15 years, taken from KM graphs and are approximate

Parkinson et al. Baseline data. Group 1 intact articular cartilage or partial thickness loss. Group 2 full thickness loss on one condyle. Group 3 full thickness loss on both condyles. Kim defined failure defined as resection of graft, conversion to THA, or Lysholm score < 45 or less than before MAT

^aMcCormick—but 32% had subsequent surgery usually debridement