Microfracture for the treatment of cartilage defects in the knee joint – A golden standard?

• Published in: Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma Vol. 7; no. 3; pp. 145 - 152
• Main Authors: Erggelet, Christoph, Vavken, P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Elsevier B.V 01.07.2016; Elsevier
• Subjects: Cartilage; Golden standard; Knee; Microfracture; Orthopedics; Registry; Review; Golden standard; Knee; Cartilage; Microfracture; Registry
• ISSN: 0976-5662; 2213-3445
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2016.06.015

Abstract The evidence for the effectiveness of the microfracture procedure is largely derived from case series and few randomized trials. Clinical outcomes improve with microfracture for the most part, but in some studies these effects are not sustained. The quality of cartilage repair following microfracture is variable and inconsistent due to unknown reasons. Younger patients have better clinical outcomes and quality of cartilage repair than older patients. When lesion location was shown to affect microfracture outcome, patients with lesions of the femoral condyle have the best clinical improvements and quality of cartilage repair compared with patients who had lesions in other areas. Patients with smaller lesions have better clinical improvement than patients with larger lesions. The necessity of long postoperative CPM and restricted weight bearing is widely accepted but not completely supported by solid data. Maybe new developments like the scaffold augmented microfracture will show even more consistent clinical and biological results as well as faster rehabilitation for the treatment of small to medium sized cartilage defects in younger individuals. All in all there is limited evidence that micro fracture should be accepted as gold standard for the treatment of cartilage lesions in the knee joint. There is no study available which compares empty controls or non-surgical treatment/physiotherapy with microfracture. According to the literature there is even evidence for self regeneration of cartilage lesions. The natural history of damaged cartilage seems to be written e.g. by inflammatory processes, genetic predisposition and other factors. Possibly that explains the large variety of the clinical outcome after micro fracture and possibly the standard tools for evaluation of new technologies (randomized controlled trials, case series, etc.) are not sufficient (anymore). Future technologies will be evaluated by big data from international registries for earlier detection of safety issues, for detection of subtle but crucial co-factors for failure and osteoarthritis as well as for lower financial burdens affecting industry and healthcare systems likewise.