Table 2.
Studies comparing outcomes following ACI and other cartilage procedures
| S. no. | Author name (year of publication) | No. of subjects | Follow-up | Outcomes reported | Conclusions/recommendations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACI v/s microfracture | |||||
| 1 | Knutsen et al. 2016 [47] | 80 (ACI = 40, MF = 40) | 180 |
Tegner activity levels Lysholm score Visual analogue scale (VAS) Short form-36 (SF-36) |
No significant difference in two interventions using Lysholm score (p = 0.267), VAS (p = 0.071) and SF-36 (p = 0.747) Both groups had a median Tegner score of 4 at the last follow-up Significantly better outcome in young patients (< 30) p = 0.013 Association of histological quality and risk of later failure seen at 5 years was no longer significant |
| 2 | Vanlauwe et al. 2011 [48] | 112 (ACI = 51, MF = 61) | 60 | KOOS | No significant difference |
| 3 | Kon et al. 2009 [49] | 80 (CCI = 40, MF = 40) | 60 |
Tegner activity levels IKDC scores Return to competition |
IKDC: significant improvements in both groups Significantly better for ACI at 5 years TAS: degraded for MF at 5 years follow-up |
| 4 | Brittberg 2018 [50] | 128, MACI = 65, MF = 63 | 60 |
KOOS SF 12 Cincinnati knee rating system |
All parameters improved significantly (p > 0.05) over baseline for MACI and MF Significantly better KOOS for MACI group at 5 years (p = 0.02) |
| ACI v/s OATS | |||||
| 1 | Horas et al. 2003 [51] | 40 (ACI = 20, OAT = 20) | 24 |
Lysholm knee surgery score Meyers score Tegner activity level score |
No significant difference in two interventions with Meyers score and Tegner score Significantly better Lysholm score in OAT patients (p ≤ 0.012 at 24 months) |
| 2 | Bentley et al. 2012 [52] | 100 (ACI = 58, OAT = 42) | 120 |
Cincinnati rating Stanmore–Bentley functional rating |
ACI shows significantly reduced number of failures (17% v/s 55%, log rank, p < 0.001) significantly better Cincinnati scores (p = 0.02) and non-significantly better Stanmore–Bentley functional rating (p = 0.27) with ACI (assessed in patients without failures) |
| BMAC v/s ACI | |||||
| 1 | Gobbi et al. 2015 [43] | 37 (MACI = 19, BMAC = 18) | 36 |
IKDC KOOS Tegner activity level |
No adverse events in either group Both groups showed significant improvement from baseline (p = 0.001) Significantly better IKDC subjective scores for BMAC group (p = 0.015) MACI had better outcome in trochlear lesions than patellar lesions |
| 2 | Teo et al. 2019 [53] | 62 (ACI = 32, BMSCs = 30) | 120 |
IKDC SF-36 Lysholm knee score Tegner activity scale |
Improvement on all PROMs except mental component of SF-36 Equivalent outcomes, no significant difference between the two groups |