ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2011
Comparison of two different matrix-based autologous chondrocyte transplantation systems: 1 year follow-up results.
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Autologous chondrocyte implantation, matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation, osteochondral autograft transplantation and osteochondral allograft improve knee function and pain with considerations for patient and cartilage defects characteristics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Pooled it
- The comparison between the different generations of autologous chondrocyte implantation with other treatment modalities: a systematic review of clinical trials.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2016Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee is a common problem in orthopaedic surgery. Autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT) is one of the few reliable treatment options of cartilage defects with good long-term outcomes. The improvement of ACT led to the matrix-based ACT (MACT). The purpose of the study was to compare two different commercially available MACT systems.
methodsEleven patients with a cartilage defect of the knee were treated with the MACI(®) system and another nine patients with the CaRes(®) implant. The patients were prospectively followed and re-examined after one year.
resultsOne year after surgery all but one patient have significantly improved in their clinical outcome. Both types of MACT revealed similar results in terms of increase in level of activity, pain relief and knee function.
conclusionThe study showed that MACT is a good therapeutic option for full-size defects of the femoral condyle. The MACI(®) implant seems to be easier to handle which is reflected by smaller incisions and a shorter operation time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26815276What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.