File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte implantation in cartilage repair of the knee: A systematic review of controlled trials

TitleEffectiveness of autologous chondrocyte implantation in cartilage repair of the knee: A systematic review of controlled trials
Authors
KeywordsAutologous chondrocyte implantation
Cartilage repair
Evidence-based medicine
Outcome assessment
Systematic review
Issue Date2010
PublisherWB Saunders Co Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joca
Citation
Osteoarthritis And Cartilage, 2010, v. 18 n. 6, p. 857-863 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: The relative differences in effectiveness of subchondral stimulation, osteochondral grafts, and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) are still unclear. It is the objective of this study to systematically review the literature on ACI compared to other treatments by clinical outcome and the quality of the repair tissue, including an assessment of the validity of these findings. Method: The online databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and BioMed were searched. Controlled trials comparing ACI with other methods of cartilage repair or placebo were included. Data on clinical outcome and the quality of the repair tissue was abstracted in duplicate. Study validity was assessed by individual components (randomization, blinded outcome assessment, sample size, attrition, percentage biopsies). Results: Nine studies were included. The internal validity of most of these studies was poor. Studies comparing ACI with subchondral stimulation have a higher quality and show no differences in clinical outcomes, but suggest better results in tissue quality. The high quality evidence comparing ACI with osteochondral grafts shows better clinical outcomes and higher tissue quality after ACI. Conclusion: Among the included studies there is much inconsistency in methodological quality and findings. Regardless of these problems, the absolute differences between groups are fairly small, thus raising questions about their clinical importance. Future studies will be needed to answer the question of benefits of ACI compared to other treatments, and could profit from addressing and avoiding the problems seen in this group. Finally conclusions concerning long-term effects are still difficult. © 2010 Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/92885
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 4.535
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.901
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVavken, Pen_HK
dc.contributor.authorSamartzis, Den_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-22T05:02:42Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-22T05:02:42Z-
dc.date.issued2010en_HK
dc.identifier.citationOsteoarthritis And Cartilage, 2010, v. 18 n. 6, p. 857-863en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1063-4584en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/92885-
dc.description.abstractObjective: The relative differences in effectiveness of subchondral stimulation, osteochondral grafts, and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) are still unclear. It is the objective of this study to systematically review the literature on ACI compared to other treatments by clinical outcome and the quality of the repair tissue, including an assessment of the validity of these findings. Method: The online databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and BioMed were searched. Controlled trials comparing ACI with other methods of cartilage repair or placebo were included. Data on clinical outcome and the quality of the repair tissue was abstracted in duplicate. Study validity was assessed by individual components (randomization, blinded outcome assessment, sample size, attrition, percentage biopsies). Results: Nine studies were included. The internal validity of most of these studies was poor. Studies comparing ACI with subchondral stimulation have a higher quality and show no differences in clinical outcomes, but suggest better results in tissue quality. The high quality evidence comparing ACI with osteochondral grafts shows better clinical outcomes and higher tissue quality after ACI. Conclusion: Among the included studies there is much inconsistency in methodological quality and findings. Regardless of these problems, the absolute differences between groups are fairly small, thus raising questions about their clinical importance. Future studies will be needed to answer the question of benefits of ACI compared to other treatments, and could profit from addressing and avoiding the problems seen in this group. Finally conclusions concerning long-term effects are still difficult. © 2010 Osteoarthritis Research Society International.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherWB Saunders Co Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jocaen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofOsteoarthritis and Cartilageen_HK
dc.subjectAutologous chondrocyte implantationen_HK
dc.subjectCartilage repairen_HK
dc.subjectEvidence-based medicineen_HK
dc.subjectOutcome assessmenten_HK
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen_HK
dc.titleEffectiveness of autologous chondrocyte implantation in cartilage repair of the knee: A systematic review of controlled trialsen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailSamartzis, D:dspine@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authoritySamartzis, D=rp01430en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.joca.2010.03.005en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid20346400-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-77952875312en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros173067-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-77952875312&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume18en_HK
dc.identifier.issue6en_HK
dc.identifier.spage857en_HK
dc.identifier.epage863en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000278642400017-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridVavken, P=23978781100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSamartzis, D=34572771100en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats