Introduction and Aims: The treatment of cartilage defects has been revolutionised by the introduction of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) over the last decade. Several studies have shown superior clinical and histological results compared to traditional treatments such as mosaicplasty. ACI involves injecting chondrocytes into the defect and sealing it with periosteum or chondroguide membrane. Recently, a new technique has been introduced which allows chondrocytes to be embedded within a matrix which is then used to fill the cartilage defect. The aim is to assess the early functional, clinical and histological results of MACI for the treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects.

Method: This is a prospective study. Fifty patients, mean age 34 (range 19–62) underwent MACI for their cartilage repair. The modified Cincinnati, Brittberg and Lysholm and Gillquist scores were used to assess functional outcome. These were compared with the results obtained in 40 patients; mean age 31 (range 15–51) treated with ACI. A review of the histology in both groups was carried out.

Results: At two-year follow-up, functional assessment using the Brittberg and modified cincinnati scoring systems, as well as objective clinical assessment, showed that more than 75% of patients had good or excellent results following treatment with either ACI or MACI. There was no statistical difference in the functional scores between the two groups (p < 0.05). Histological results were similar in both groups.

Conclusion: Our prospective study has shown that results of MACI are comparable to that obtained by ACI. Additional advantages of the MACI technique being a shorter operative time, easier technique and potential to treat larger defects.

Aims: For the scaphoid, several views are needed to visualise the whole bone. These sets of views are routinely called “scaphoid views”. However certain views are better than others for imaging particular parts of the scaphoid. The authors believe that asking for scaphoid views from the radiology department often leads to a wide variety and number of radiographic views being taken, even when a protocol is in place. Methods: 50 radiographers from 4 London teaching hospitals were asked which and how many views of the scaphoid they would take, at initial presentation and in the outpatient setting. They were also asked to describe and demonstrate exactly how they would take the view(s) chosen. Results: We found a wide variation in the descriptive terms used by radiographers for particular views. There was also little agreement on how many and which views to take despite protocols being in place. Conclusion: Not only is their complete lack of agreement on what “scaphoid views” should be, it was also discovered that there was little agreement on the nomenclature of the individual views themselves. This can lead to loss of information from the wrong views being taken as well as unnecessary radiation exposure. The lack of nomenclature also leads to confusion between radiologists, radiographers and surgeons.