Minimally manipulated cells, such as autologous bone marrow concentrates (BMC), have been investigated in orthopaedics as both a primary therapeutic and augmentation to existing restoration procedures. However, the efficacy of BMC in combination with tissue engineering is still unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine whether the addition of BMC to an osteochondral scaffold is safe and can improve the repair of large osteochondral defects when compared to the scaffold alone. The ovine femoral condyle model was used. Bone marrow was aspirated, concentrated, and used intraoperatively with a collagen/hydroxyapatite scaffold to fill the osteochondral defects (n = 6). Tissue regeneration was then assessed versus the scaffold-only group (n = 6). Histological staining of cartilage with alcian blue and safranin-O, changes in chondrogenic gene expression, microCT, peripheral quantitative CT (pQCT), and force-plate gait analyses were performed. Lymph nodes and blood were analyzed for safety.Aims
Methods
Aims. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine if there are differences in short-term clinical outcomes among four different types of matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT). Methods. A total of 88 patients (mean age 34 years (SD 10.03), mean BMI 25 kg/m. 2. (SD 3.51)) with full-thickness chondral lesions of the tibiofemoral joint who underwent MACT were included in this study. Clinical examinations were performed preoperatively and 24 months after transplantation. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form, the Brittberg score, the Tegner Activity Scale, and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain. The Kruskal-Wallis test by ranks was used to compare the clinical scores of the different transplant types. Results. The mean defect size of the tibiofemoral joint compartment was 4.28 cm. 2. (SD 1.70). In total, 11 patients (12.6%) underwent transplantation with Chondro-Gide (matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI)), 40 patients (46.0%) with Hyalograft C (HYAFF), 21 patients (24.1%) with
