Table 3.
Comparison of Variables between Groups (PIA vs. PIM).
| Analyzed Variable | Group |
P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acellular Implant (n = 6) | MSCs Implant (n = 11) | ||
| Age | 33.1 ± 5.9 | 37.6 ± 8.2 | 0.26 |
| Male gender | 6 (100%) | 7 (63.6%) | 0.04 |
| Weight | 84.6 ± 10.4 | 75.8 ± 11.9 | 0.14 |
| Body mass index | 26.8 ± 3.6 | 27.2 ± 3.7 | 0.82 |
| Right knee | 5 (83.3%) | 4 (36.4%) | 0.05 |
| ACL injury | 4 (66.7%) | 2 (18.2%) | 0.04 |
| Presence of cartilage injury | 2 (33.3%) | 8 (72.7%) | 0.11 |
| Cartilage injury size | 9.5 ± 77.7 | 10.7 ± 12.2 | 0.36 |
| Months of meniscectomy | 31.8 ± 30.7 | 14.2 ± 5.3 | 0.09 |
| Implant size (cm) | 5.5 ± 1.4 | 3.7 ± 1.9 | 0.08 |
| Tibial cartigram (ms) | 41.8 ± 3.6 | 43.9 ± 5.9 | 0.50 |
| Femoral cartigram (ms) | 43.7 ± 4.6 | 47.6 ± 3.7 | 0.13 |
P < 0.05 are significantly different.
There was significant difference between groups in gender, knee side, ACL reconstruction, months of meniscectomy, and implant size. Values were higher acellular patients compare with the patients with MSCs implants (P < 0.05).