Abstract
Purpose: Approximately 60% of patients undergoing arthroscopy of the knee present with chondral defects. If left untreated, osteochondral lesions can trigger an early onset of osteoarthritis. Many cartilage repair techniques are mainly differentiated in techniques aiming for bone marrow stimulation, or cell-based methods. Cartilage repair can also be categorized in one- and two-stage procedures. Some two-stage procedures come with a high cost for scaffolds, extensive cell-processing, strict regulatory requirements, and limited logistical availability. Minced cartilage, however, is a one-stage procedure delivering promising results in short term follow-up, as noted in recent investigations. However, there is no available literature summarizing or synthesizing clinical data. The purpose of this study was to analyze and synthesize data from the latest literature in a meta-analysis of outcomes after the minced cartilage procedure and to compare its effectiveness to standard repair techniques. Methods: We conducted a systematic review searching the Cochrane, PubMed, and Ovid databases. Inclusion criteria were the modified Coleman methodology Score (mCMS) >60, cartilaginous knee-joint defects, and adult patients. Patient age < 18 years, biomechanical and animal studies were excluded. Relevant articles were reviewed independently by referring to title and abstract. In a systematic review, we compared three studies and 52 patients with a total of 63 lesions. Results: Analysis of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) sub scores at 12 and 24 months showed a significant score increase in every sub score. Highest mean difference was seen in KOOS sport, lowest in KOOS symptoms (12 month: KOOS sport (Mean difference: 35.35 [28.16, 42.53]; p < 0.0001), lowest in KOOS symptoms (Mean difference: 20.12 [15.43, 24.80]; p < 0.0001)). A comparison of International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC ) scores visualized a significant score increase for both time points too ((12 month: pooled total mean: 73.00 ± 14.65; Mean difference: 34.33 [26.84, 41.82]; p < 0.00001) (24 month: pooled total mean: 77.64 ± 14.46; mean difference: 35.20 [39.49, 40.92]; p < 0.00001)). Conclusion: Due to no need for separate cell-processing, and thanks to being a one-step procedure, minced cartilage is a promising method for cartilage repair in small defect sizes (mean 2.77 cm2, range 1.3−4.7 cm2). However, the most recent evidence is scarce, and takes only results two years post-surgery into account. Summarized, minced cartilage presents nearly equal short-term improvement of clinical scores (IKDC, KOOS) compared to standard cartilage repair techniques.