Современные хирургические методы восстановления суставного хряща: Обзор и сравнительный анализ
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52889/Ключевые слова:
суставной хрящ, ACI, MACI, OATS, minced cartilage, хондральный дефект, коленный сустав, регенерация хрящаАннотация
Хрящевые дефекты коленного сустава остаются актуальной проблемой современной ортопедии и спортивной травматологии. В статье представлен сравнительный анализ современных хирургических методов восстановления суставного хряща, включая аутологичную хондроцитарную имплантацию (ACI/MACI), остеохондральную аутотрансплантацию (OATS) и метод использования измельчённого хряща (minced cartilage technique — MCT). Рассмотрены особенности каждого подхода с точки зрения клинической эффективности, морфологического качества регенерата, частоты осложнений и повторных вмешательств. Обозначены перспективы использования МСК и тканеинженерных технологий в сочетании с традиционными методами. Обзор основан на данных современных клинических исследований 2019–2024 гг. и направлен на формирование доказательной базы для выбора оптимальной тактики лечения хондральных поражений.
Библиографические ссылки
1. Welsch GH, Trattnig S, et al. Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) score and clinical outcome after cartilage repair surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(8):4351–4363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06791-4
2. Devitt BM, Bell SW, Webster KE, et al. Surgical treatment for cartilage defects of the knee: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(13):3270–3279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516682497
3. Niemeyer P, Angele P, Spiro RC, et al. Comparison of hydrogel-based autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture: a propensity score matched-pair analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2023;11(8):23259671231193325. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671231193325
4. Niemeyer P, Albrecht D, Fickert S, et al. Long-term results after MACI for cartilage defects: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2023;51(4):902–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465221148413
5. Zaffagnini S, Grassi A, Signorelli C, et al. Twelve-year results of MACI versus OATS for cartilage repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(3):733–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05668-9
6. Schuette H, Riedl M, Jürgens C, et al. Mid-term functional and MRI outcomes after MACI using hydrogel scaffolds. Cartilage. 2023;14(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/19476035221110233
7. Lee YH, Choi CW, Kim HJ, et al. Clinical and MRI outcomes after MACI in medium-sized chondral defects. Clin Orthop Surg. 2021;13(2):208–216. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios20199
8. Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Baroncini A, et al. Histologic quality of cartilage repair tissue following ACI and MACI: a systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02901-7
9. MOCART Outcome Registry Group. Five-year outcomes of MACI in real-world cohort. Cartilage. 2023;14(Suppl 2):S89–S101. https://doi.org/10.1177/19476035231153259
10. Ebert JR, Fallon M, Smith A, et al. Rehabilitation is crucial to outcomes following MACI. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(9):2215–2224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546520926484
11. Bartz M, Schmidt R, Hax N, et al. Long-term outcomes of OATS in athletes: a 90-month follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2024;52(3):497–506.
12. Hein T, Huber F, Welsch G, et al. Return to sport after osteochondral autograft transfer compared to MACI: a matched analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(6):232596712093236. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967120932367
13. Carey JL, Wojahn RD, Dragoo JL. Osteochondral autograft transplantation outcomes: a meta-analysis. Sports Health. 2020;12(2):151–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738119887182
14. Runer A, Weninger P, Attal R, et al. Minced cartilage procedure shows promising clinical and MRI results: a prospective study with 5-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023;31(1):120–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-07021-3
15. Frodl A, Franz A, Schenck TL, et al. Efficacy of minced cartilage implantation in cartilage repair: a systematic review. Cartilage. 2022;13(1 Suppl):286S–295S. https://doi.org/10.1177/19476035221081110
16. Schneider T, Scheidt S, Gelse K, et al. Minced cartilage combined with PRP and fibrin glue in early OA: clinical and MRI evaluation. Orthop J Sports Med. 2024;12(2):23259671231201483. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671231201483
17. Menetrey J, Duthon V, Kolo F, et al. Second-look evaluation and outcomes after autologous minced cartilage implantation. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(6):1436–1445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519899960
18. Kon E, Filardo G, Di Martino A, et al. Patient-reported outcomes following minced cartilage application: a multicenter experience. J Exp Orthop. 2023;10(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00619-3
19. Goyal D, Keyhani S, Goyal A, et al. Minced cartilage with PRP: review of outcomes and recommendations. World J Orthop. 2022;13(3):129–138. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v13.i3.129
20. Welsch GH, Mamisch TC, Zak L, et al. Clinical and MR imaging outcome after cartilage repair surgery using MCT: 2-year follow-up. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(10):5464–5473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06810-4
21. Schneider S, Ossendorf C, Runer A, et al. Arthroscopic autologous minced cartilage implantation of cartilage defects in the knee: a 2-year follow-up of 62 patients. Orthop J Sports Med. 2024;12(12):23259671241297970. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241297970
22. Ossendorff R, Schneider S, Runer A, et al. Comparison of minced cartilage implantation with autologous chondrocyte transplantation in an in vitro inflammation model. Biomedicines. 2024;12(3):627. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12030627
23. Zaffagnini S, Boffa A, Andriolo L, et al. Mosaicplasty versus matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte transplantation for knee cartilage defects: a long-term clinical and imaging evaluation. Appl Sci. 2020;10(13):4615. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10134615
24. Zaffagnini S, Grassi A, Campi F, et al. Comparative long-term evaluation of mosaicplasty versus matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee joint. Appl Sci. 2020;10(13):4615. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10134615
25. Niemeyer P, et al. Costs and outcomes of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture in the knee: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2023;39(4):801–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2022.10.026
26. Carey JL, et al. Osteochondral autograft transfer: indications, technique, and outcomes. Clin Sports Med. 2021;40(2):223–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2020.12.003
27. Krych AJ, Pareek A, King AH, et al. Return to sport after the surgical management of articular cartilage lesions in the knee: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(10):3186–3196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4295-z
28. Schneider S, Runer A, Ossendorf C, et al. Comparison of three different techniques for the treatment of cartilage lesions – MACI versus AMIC and arthroscopic minced cartilage: a 2-year follow-up on patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Med. 2025;14(7):2194. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14072194
29. Zamborsky R, Danisovic L. Surgical techniques for knee cartilage repair: an updated large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(3):845–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2019.11.010
30. Devitt BM, Bell SW, Webster KE, et al. Surgical treatment for cartilage defects of the knee: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(13):3270–3279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516682497
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
