Arthroscopic and open approaches for autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis repair of the knee have similar results: a meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundCartilage defects are debilitating injuries that can reduce quality of life in patients. However, the poor regenerative properties of cartilage mean that cartilage repair remains challenging, and many methods have arisen to address that. Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC®) is a popular technique to manage cartilage defects. Recent advances have allowed AMIC® to be done arthroscopically, instead of a mini-open arthrotomy approach. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate whether the arthroscopic approach to AMIC® provides better clinical outcomes than does the mini-open approach, in hopes of delineating a gold standard in cartilage repair. MethodsWith reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a systematic search of the following databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was performed on 26th October 2022 using a combination of the following search terms: “autologous matrix induced”, “chondrogenesis”, and “knee”. A total of 390 studies were identified, of which, 24 studies were included in our final analysis. ResultsThe arthroscopic approach achieves lower Visual Analogue Scale for pain scores. The International Knee documentation Committee) score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score were comparable between arthroscopic and open approaches. The open approach achieves a higher Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue score. Incidence of reported postoperative complications of revision surgery and knee stiffness was higher for the open approach than for the arthroscopic approach, whereas deep vein thrombosis was higher in the arthroscopic approach. ConclusionThe AMIC® repair outcomes indicate that the arthroscopic approach does not hold a distinct advantage over the open approach. The choice of approach should consider surgeon expertise, location of lesion, and patient-specific factors. Level of evidenceSystematic review and meta-analysis; Level III.