Articular Cartilage Defect Clinical Trial
Official title:
Randomized Study Comparing Two Methods for the Treatment of Large Chondral and Osteochondral Defects of the Knee: Augmented Microfracture Technique vs. 3rd Generation of ACI
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.
Knee cartilage injuries are common, especially in young active adults, and have the potential to progress to osteoarthritis if left untreated, which would disable a large part of the population with joint functionality loss.The issue with knee cartilage remains in the fact that the tissue has very limited healing potential as it contains no blood vessels allowing a supply in cells for a proper regeneration. Many surgical techniques have been developed for cartilage repair, however, traditional methods have shown their limitations, especially in the case of large defects. More importantly, there is no consensus on novel surgical techniques. Therefore, the choice of a proper cartilage treatment becomes crucial Worldwide, because the aging population is increasing rapidly and there is a need to remain functional and independent as long as possible. The overall objective of the present study is to compare two advanced surgical techniques for the treatment of large defects in cartilage: one technique consists of a more conventional and widely used approach, which stimulates the natural repair of the tissue by making micro-holes in the bone, allowing the recruitment cells from the underneath bone marrow and stabilize them with a membrane to repair the defect (technique called enhanced microfracture or AMT); and the other technique called MACT, consists of taking patients own cartilage cells from a small biopsy and growing them on a membrane to form a cartilage tissue in vitro, which is then implanted surgically at the location of the injury. This second technique has the advantage of cellular assistance in the surgery enabling to improve the regeneration. The purpose of this study is to determine which technique (AMT or MACT) is the most appropriate to treat large cartilage injuries, in order to propose the best therapeutic option depending on the severity, size and location of the injury in the joint to the patient. ;
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT04840147 -
A Comparison of JointRep® and Microfracture in Repair of Cartilage Lesions on the Femoral Condyle or Trochlea,
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05942430 -
Autologous Costal Osteochondral Transplantation for Talar Osteochondral Lesions
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT04296487 -
Introduction of ACI for Cartilage Repair
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT04744402 -
Phase 2 Clinical Trial of CartiLife® in the United States
|
Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT03588975 -
A Study of MACI in Patients Aged 10 to 17 Years With Symptomatic Chondral or Osteochondral Defects of the Knee
|
Phase 3 | |
Recruiting |
NCT03219307 -
NOVOCART 3D Treatment Following Microfracture Failure
|
Phase 3 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT05051332 -
Phase 3 Clinical Trial of CartiLife® in Korea
|
Phase 3 | |
Recruiting |
NCT05402072 -
AMIC Compared With Microfracture for Focal Articular Cartilage Damage of the Hip
|
Phase 1 | |
Completed |
NCT00719576 -
Superiority of MACI® Versus Microfracture Treatment in Patients With Symptomatic Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee
|
Phase 3 | |
Not yet recruiting |
NCT01984450 -
A Study to Compare Two Techniques for Articular Cartilage Repair:ACIC Vs. MCIC
|
N/A |