Comparative Effectiveness of Cartilage Repair With Respect to the Minimal Clinically Important Difference. Issue 13 (November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jones, Kristofer J.; Kelley, Benjamin V.; Arshi, Armin; McAllister, David R.; Fabricant, Peter D.
• Is Part Of: American journal of sports medicine. Volume 47:Issue 13(2019)
• Page Start: 3284
• Page End: 3293
• Publication Date: 2019-11
• Subjects: minimally important clinical difference -- microfracture -- osteoarticular transfer system -- osteochondral allograft transplantation -- autologous chondrocyte implantation; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Sports injuries -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.102705
• DOI: 10.1177/0363546518824552
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0363-5465

Abstract

Background: Recent studies demonstrated a 5% increase in cartilage repair procedures annually in the United States. There is currently no consensus regarding a superior technique, nor has there been a comprehensive evaluation of postoperative clinical outcomes with respect to a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Purpose: To determine the proportion of available cartilage repair studies that meet or exceed MCID values for clinical outcomes improvement over short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review was performed via the Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Available studies were included that investigated clinical outcomes for microfracture (MFX), osteoarticular transfer system (OATS), osteochondral allograft transplantation, and autologous chondrocyte implantation/matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI/MACI) for the treatment of symptomatic knee chondral defects. Cohorts were combined on the basis of surgical intervention by performing a meta-analysis that utilized inverse-variance weighting in a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model. Weighted mean improvements in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain) scores were calculated from preoperative to short- (1-4 years), mid- (5-9 years), and long-term (≥10 years) postoperative follow-up. Mean values were compared with established MCID values per 2-tailed 1-sample Student t tests. Results: A total of 89 studies with 3894 unique patients were analyzed after full-text review. MFX met MCID values for all outcome scores at short- and midterm follow-up with the exception of VAS pain in the midterm. OATS met MCID values for all outcome scores at all available time points; however, long-term data were not available for VAS pain. Osteochondral allograft transplantation met MCID values for IKDC at short- and midterm follow-up and for Lysholm at short-term follow-up, although data were not available for other time points or for VAS pain. ACI/MACI met MCID values for all outcome scores (IKDC, Lysholm, and VAS pain) at all time points. Conclusion: In the age of informed consent, it is important to critically evaluate the clinical outcomes and durability of cartilage surgery with respect to well-established standards of clinical improvement. MFX failed to maintain VAS pain improvements above MCID thresholds with follow-up from 5 to 9 years. All cartilage repair procedures met MCID values at short- and midterm follow-up for IKDC and Lysholm scores; ACI/MACI and OATS additionally met MCID values in the long term, demonstrating extended maintenance of clinical benefits for patients undergoing these surgical interventions as compared with MFX.