Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 406

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Matrix‐induced autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee: a 2‐year randomised study

Basad, Erhan, Ishaque, Bernd, Bachmann, Georg, Stürz, Henning, Steinmeyer, Jürgen·2010·Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
DOI 10.1007/s00167-009-1028-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cartilage defects occur in approximately 12% of the population and can result in significant function impairment and reduction in quality of life. Evidence for the variety of surgical treatments available is inconclusive. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic cartilage defects treated with matrix‐induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI™ or microfracture (MF). Included patients were ≥18 and ≤50 years of age with symptomatic, post‐traumatic, single, isolated chondral defects (4–10 cm 2) and were randomised to receive MACI™ or MF. Patients were followed up 8–12, 22–26 and 50–54 weeks post‐operatively for efficacy and safety evaluation. Outcome measures were the Tegner, Lysholm and ICRS scores. Sixty patients were included in a randomised study (40 MACI™, 20 MF). The difference between baseline and 24 months post‐operatively for both treatment groups was significant for the Lysholm, Tegner, patient ICRS and surgeon ICRS scores (all P < 0.0001). However, MACI™ was significantly more effective over time (24 months versus baseline) than MF according to the Lysholm (P = 0.005), Tegner (P = 0.04), ICRS patient (P = 0.03) and ICRS surgeon (P = 0.02) scores. There were no safety issues related to MACI™ or MF during the study. MACI™ is superior to MF in the treatment of articular defects over 2 years. MACI™ and MF are complementary procedures, depending on the size of the defect and symptom recurrence. The MACI™ technique represents a significant advance over both first and second generation chondrocyte‐based cartilage repair techniques for surgeons, patients, health care institutions and payers in terms of reproducibility, safety, intraoperative time, surgical simplicity and reduced invasiveness.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00167-009-1028-1

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 406

Metadata

Authors
Basad, E., Ishaque, B., Bachmann, G., Stürz, H., & Steinmeyer, J.
Venue
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-01-09
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
519-527
ISSN
  • 0942-2056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7347
DOI
10.1007/s00167-009-1028-1
OpenAlex
W2055110769
Cited by
406
References
24
FWCI
22.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Matrix‐induced autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee: a 2‐year randomised study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00167-009-1028-1
The paper
Basad, E., Ishaque, B., Bachmann, G., Stürz, H., & Steinmeyer, J. (2010). Matrix‐induced autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee: a 2‐year randomised study. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-1028-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.