Prospective Long-term Follow-up of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation With Periosteum Versus Matrix-Associated Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) is a further development of the original autologous chondrocyte implantation periosteal flap technique (ACI-P) for the treatment of articular cartilage defects. Purpose: We aimed to establish whether MACI or ACI-P provides superior long-term outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction, clinical assessment, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 21 patients with cartilage defects at the femoral condyle were randomized to MACI (n = 11) or ACI-P (n = 10) between the years 2004 and 2006. Patients were assessed for subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm and Gillquist score, Tegner Activity Score, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) preoperatively (T0), at 1 and 2 years postoperatively (T1, T2), and at the final follow-up 8 to 11 years after surgery (T3). Onset of osteoarthritis was determined using the Kellgren-Lawrence score and Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score, and delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage was used to evaluate the cartilage. Adverse events were recorded to assess safety. Results: There were 16 patients (MACI, n = 9; ACI-P, n = 7) who were reassessed on average 9.6 years after surgery (76% follow-up rate). The Lysholm and Gillquist score improved in both groups after surgery and remained elevated but reached statistical significance only in ACI-P at T1 and T2. IKDC scores increased significantly at all postoperative evaluation time points in ACI-P. In MACI, IKDC scores showed a significant increase at T1 and T3 when compared with T0. In the majority of the patients (10/16; MACI, 5/9; ACI-P, 5/7) a complete defect filling was present at the final follow-up as shown by the MOCART score, and 1 patient in the ACI-P group displayed hypertrophy of the repair tissue, which represents 6% of the whole study group and 14.3% of the ACI-P group. Besides higher SF-36 vitality scores in ACI-P at T3, no significant differences were seen in clinical scores and MRI scores between the 2 methods at any time point. Revision rate was 33.3% in MACI and 28.6% in ACI-P at the last follow-up. Conclusion: Our long-term results suggest that first- and third-generation ACI methods are equally effective treatments for isolated full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee. With the number of participants available, no significant difference was noted between MACI and ACI-P at any time point. Interpretation of our data has to be performed with caution due to the small sample size, which was further limited by a loss to follow-up of 24%.