The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical Efficacy of the Microfracture Technique for Articular Cartilage Repair in the Knee: An Evidence-Based Systematic Analysis
Abstract
Background: Despite the popularity of microfracture as a first-line treatment for articular cartilage defects in the knee, systematic information on its clinical efficacy for articular cartilage repair and long-term improvement of knee function is not available. Hypothesis: Systematic analysis of the existing clinical literature of microfracture in the knee can improve the understanding of the advantages and limitations of this cartilage repair technique and can help to optimize its indications and clinical outcomes. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using established search engines (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) to identify original human studies of articular cartilage repair with microfracture. Modified Coleman Methodology Scores were used to analyze the quality of the existing studies. Clinical efficacy of articular cartilage repair was evaluated by systematic analysis of short- and long-term functional outcome scores, macroscopic and microscopic repair cartilage quality, and findings of postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Twenty-eight studies describing 3122 patients were included in the review. The average follow-up was 41 months, with only 5 studies reporting follow-up of 5 years or more. Six studies were randomized controlled trials and the mean Coleman Methodology Score was 58 (range, 22–97). Microfracture effectively improved knee function in all studies during the first 24 months after microfracture, but the reports on durability of the initial functional improvement were conflicting. Several factors were identified that affected clinical outcome. Defect fill on magnetic resonance imaging was highly variable and correlated with functional outcome. Macroscopic repair cartilage quality positively affected long-term failure rate, while the influence of histologic repair tissue quality remained inconclusive. Conclusion: This systematic analysis shows that microfracture provides effective short-term functional improvement of knee function but insufficient data are available on its long-term results. Shortcomings of the technique include limited hyaline repair tissue, variable repair cartilage volume, and possible functional deterioration. The quality of the currently available data on micro-fracture is still limited by the variability of results and study designs. Further well-designed studies are needed to determine the long-term efficacy of microfracture and to define its specific clinical indications compared to other cartilage repair techniques.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Cell-laden hydrogels for osteochondral and cartilage tissue engineering
Yang, J., Zhang, Y. S., Yue, K., & Khademhosseini, A. (2017) · Acta Biomaterialia · doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.036 · Cited by 652
Human Cartilage Repair with a Photoreactive Adhesive-Hydrogel Composite
Sharma, B., Fermanian, S., Gibson, M., Unterman, S., Herzka, D. A., Cascio, B., Coburn, J., Hui, A. Y., Marcus, N., Gold, G. E., et al. (2013) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3004838 · Cited by 342
Stem cell homing in musculoskeletal injury
Fong, E. L. S., Chan, C. K., & Goodman, S. B. (2011) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.08.101 · Cited by 212
Advances and prospects in biomimetic multilayered scaffolds for articular cartilage regeneration
Fu, L., Yang, Z., Gao, C., Li, H., Yuan, Z., Wang, F., Sui, X., Liu, S., & Guo, Q. (2020) · Regenerative Biomaterials · doi:10.1093/rb/rbaa042 · Cited by 65
Awad, M. E., Hussein, K. A., Helwa, I., Abdelsamid, M. F., Aguilar-Perez, A., Mohsen, I., Hunter, M., Hamrick, M. W., Isales, C. M., Elsalanty, M., et al. (2019) · Stem Cells International · doi:10.1155/2019/3826054 · Cited by 39
Regenerative Medicine in Orthopaedic Surgery: Pioneering Advances and Their Applications
Islam, M. T., Bulut, D., & Sharabidze, Z. (2025) · EMJ Innovation · doi:10.33590/emjinnov/fgds3814 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Mithoefer, K., McAdams, T., Williams, R. J., Kreuz, P. C., & Mandelbaum, B. R.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Sports Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-02-26
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2053-2063
- ISSN
- 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3365
- OpenAlex
- W2129573593
- Cited by
- 1,013
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 28.96
- 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
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.