Microfracture of Acetabular Chondral Lesions Is Not Superior to Other Cartilage Repair Techniques in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review to compare clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy patients undergoing microfracture (MFx) versus other cartilage repair procedures for chondral lesions of the acetabulum. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify comparative studies that directly compared outcomes between MFx and other cartilage repair procedures for full-thickness chondral lesions of the acetabulum identified during hip arthroscopy. The search phrase used was: hip AND arthroscopy AND microfracture. Patients were evaluated based on reoperation rates and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Six studies (all Level III evidence) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 202 patients undergoing microfracture (group A) and 327 patients undergoing another cartilage repair procedure (group B). Mean patient age ranged from 35.0 to 45.0 years. Mean follow-up time ranged from 12.0 to 72.0 months. Significantly better patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were found in patients undergoing treatment with bone marrow aspirate concentrate, microfragmented adipose tissue concentrate, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, and a combination of autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis and bone marrow aspirate concentrate compared with MFx. No studies found significantly better postoperative PROs in group A. The reoperation rate ranged from 0% to 34.6% in group A and 0% to 15.9% in group B. Three of 5 studies reporting on reoperation rate found a significantly greater reoperation rate in group A, with no difference in the other 2 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on MFx of acetabular chondral lesions is limited and heterogeneous. Based on the available data, MFx alone results in a greater or equivalent reoperation rate and inferior or equivalent PROs compared with other cartilage repair procedures for acetabular chondral lesions in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of level III studies.

Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis Who Receive Platelet-Rich Plasma or Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections Have Better Outcomes Than Patients Who Receive Hyaluronic Acid: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify Level I studies that compared the clinical efficacy of at least 2 of the following 3 injection therapies: PRP, BMAC, and HA for knee OA. The search phrase used was knee AND osteoarthritis AND randomized AND ("platelet rich plasma" OR "bone marrow aspirate" OR "hyaluronic acid"). Patients were primarily assessed based on patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies (all Level I) met inclusion criteria, including 1,042 patients undergoing intra-articular injection(s) with PRP (mean age 57.7 years, mean follow-up 13.5 months), 226 patients with BMAC (mean age 57.0 years, mean follow-up 17.5 months), and 1,128 patients with HA (mean age 59.0 years, mean follow-up 14.4 months). Nonnetwork meta-analyses demonstrated significantly better postinjection WOMAC (P < .001), VAS (P < .01), and Subjective IKDC scores (P < .001) in patients who received PRP compared with patients who received HA. Similarly, network meta-analyses demonstrated significantly better postinjection WOMAC (P < .001), VAS (P = .03), and Subjective IKDC (P < .001) scores in patients who received BMAC compared with patients who received HA. There were no significant differences in postinjection outcome scores when comparing PRP with BMAC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing treatment for knee OA with PRP or BMAC can be expected to experience improved clinical outcomes when compared with patients who receive HA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.