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 Cartilage Regeneration System (CaReS), and 15 patients (17.2%) with NOVOCART 3D. The mean IKDC Subjective Knee Form score improved from 35.71 (SD 6.44) preoperatively to 75.26 (SD 18.36) after 24 months postoperatively in the Hyalograft group, from 35.94 (SD 10.29) to 71.57 (SD 16.31) in the Chondro-Gide (MACI) group, from 37.06 (SD 5.42) to 71.49 (SD 6.76) in the NOVOCART 3D group, and from 45.05 (SD 15.83) to 70.33 (SD 19.65) in the CaReS group. Similar improvements were observed in the VAS and Brittberg scores. Conclusion. Two years postoperatively, there were no significant differences in terms of outcomes. Our data demonstrated that MACT, regardless of the implants used, resulted in good clinical improvement two years after transplantation for localized tibiofemoral defects. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(7):370–379

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used increasingly in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We conducted a systematic review aimed at identifying psychometrically sound PROMs by appraising their measurement properties. Studies concerning the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of PROMs used in a TKA population were systematically retrieved via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. Ratings for methodological quality and measurement properties were conducted according to updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Of the 155 articles on 34 instruments included, nine PROMs met the minimum requirements for psychometric validation and can be recommended to use as measures of TKA outcome: Oxford Knee Score (OKS); OKS–Activity and Participation Questionnaire (OKS-APQ); 12-item short form Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS-12); KOOS Physical function Short form (KOOS-PS); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index-Total Knee Replacement function short form (WOMAC-TKR); Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS); Forgotten Joint Score (FJS); Patient’s Knee Implant Performance (PKIP); and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. The pain and function subscales in WOMAC, as well as the pain, function, and quality of life subscales in KOOS, were validated psychometrically as standalone subscales instead of as whole instruments. However, none of the included PROMs have been validated for all measurement properties. Thus, further studies are still warranted to evaluate those PROMs. Use of the other 25 scales and subscales should be tempered until further studies validate their measurement properties.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(3):203–217.