View clinical trials related to Articular Cartilage Defect.
Filter by:The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of autologous costal osteochondral transplantation in the treatment of Hepple Stage V talar osteochondral lesions, compared with autologous osteoperiosteal transplantation. The main question it aims to answer is: • Whether autologous costal osteochondral transplantation can achieve better clinical outcomes and cartilage repair quality with lower donor site morbidity than autologous osteoperiosteal transplantation in the treatment of Hepple Stage V talar osteochondral lesions. Participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention group (undergoing autologous costal osteochondral transplantation) or the control group (undergoing autologous osteoperiosteal transplantation). Both groups of participants will receive the same postoperative rehabilitation process and follow-up evaluation.
The major objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the MACT versus the AMT for the treatment of large cartilage defects in patellofemoral and femorotibial injuries.
This is a pilot multi-centre RCT of 40 patients (ages 18-40 years, inclusive) undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with a focal articular cartilage defect of the acetabulum to compare the effect of using autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) in comparison to microfracture on hip function, health-related quality of life, hip pain, cartilage regeneration, health utility, and any adverse events at 2 years. Follow-up will occur at 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months post-surgery.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pellet-type extracellular matrix-associated autologous chondrocytes (CartiLife®) obtained by cultivating costal chondrocytes of the subject implanted into articular cartilage defects of the knee resulting from trauma or degeneration.
The aim of the study is to compare whether JointRep® plus microfracture is more effective than microfracture alone when treating symptomatic focal articular cartilage lesions in the knee (femoral condyles or trochlea).
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of implanting pellet-type extracellular matrix-associated autologous chondrocytes (CartiLife®) obtained by cultivating costal chondrocytes of the subject with articular cartilage defects of the knee as a result of trauma or degeneration.
This study was aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of autologous chondrocyte suspension for treatment of knee articular cartilage defects.
The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of MACI® vs arthroscopic microfracture in the treatment of patients aged 10 to 17 years with symptomatic articular chondral or osteochondral defects of the knee.
This study is prospective single arm extension study of protocol AAG-G-H-1220. It is open only to participants of AAG-G-H-1220 randomized to the Microfracture treatment group.
Study Title: A study to compare two articular cartilage repair techniques in the knee joint: Autologous Collagen Induced Chondrogenesis (ACIC) Vs. Mesenchymal Cell Induced Chondrogenesis (MCIC). Study hypothesis: We start with the hypothesis that both treatments are equally effective. Trial Design: This is a prospective study. The participating patients will be divided into two groups, each group receiving either one of the treatment modalities. This study will not be randomised or blinded. Both procedures will be done at the Spire Alexandra Hospital by Professor A. A Shetty, who is one half of the team that devised both techniques. Trial Participants: All participants will be from patients attending Professor Shetty's clinic at the Spire Alexandra Hospital. Planned Sample Size: 50 patients in each arm. Follow-up duration: The participating patients will be followed up at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years following the surgery by visits to the clinic and assessed clinically. The surgical outcomes will be measured by by IKDC, KOOS and Lysholm scores; cartilage growth will be measured by the MOCART score. Planned Trial Period: Two to three years Primary Objective: To establish superiority, if any, of either procedure over the other. Primary Endpoint: At the end of the 2 year follow up for all participating patients.