Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-2
Quantitative 3-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Matrix-Associated Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation With Autologous Bone Grafting of the Knee: The Importance of Subchondral Bone Parameters
Matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) with autologous bone grafting (ABG) is an effective surgical treatment for osteochondral defects. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques are increasingly applied as noninvasive biomarkers to assess the biochemical composition of cartilage repair tissue.
Purpose:
To evaluate the association of quantitative MRI parameters of cartilage repair tissue and subchondral bone marrow with magnetic resonance morphologic and clinical outcomes after MACI with ABG of the knee.
Study Design:
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods:
Qualitative and quantitative 3 T MRI of the knee was performed in 21 patients (16 male) at 2.5 years after MACI with ABG at the medial (18/21) or lateral (3/21) femoral condyle for the treatment of osteochondral defects. Morphologic MRI sequences were assessed using MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) 2.0 scores. T2 relaxation time measurements for the assessment of cartilage repair tissue (CRT2) were obtained. Single-voxel magnetic resonance spectroscopy was performed in underlying subchondral bone marrow (BM) and at both central femoral condyles. The presence of pain and Tegner scores were noted. Statistical analyses included Student t tests, correlation analyses, and multivariate regression models.
Results:
The mean defect size was 4.9 ± 1.9 cm2. At a follow-up of 2.5 ± 0.3 years, 9 of 21 patients were asymptomatic. Perfect defect filling was achieved in 66.7% (14/21) of patients. MOCART 2.0 scores (74.1 ± 18.4) did not indicate pain (68.3 ± 19.0 [pain] vs 81.7 ± 15.4 [no pain]; P = .102). However, knee pain was present in 85.7% (6/7) of patients with deep bony defects (odds ratio, 8.0; P = .078). Relative CRT2 was higher in hypertrophic cartilage repair tissue than in repair tissue with normal filling (1.54 ± 0.42 vs 1.13 ± 0.21, respectively; P = .022). The underlying BM edema–like lesion (BMEL) volume was larger in patients with underfilling compared with patients with perfect defect filling (1.87 ± 1.32 vs 0.31 ± 0.51 cm3, respectively; P = .002). Patients with severe pain showed a higher BMEL volume (1.2 ± 1.3 vs 0.2 ± 0.4 cm3, respectively; P = .046) and had a higher BM water fraction (26.0% ± 12.3% vs 8.6% ± 8.1%, respectively; P = .026) than did patients without pain.
Conclusion:
Qualitative and quantitative MRI parameters including the presence of subchondral defects, CRT2, BMEL volume, and BM water fraction were correlated with cartilage repair tissue quality and clinical symptoms. Therefore, the integrity of subchondral bone was associated with outcomes after osteochondral transplantation.
AlparslanLWinalskiCSBoutinRDMinasT. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage repair. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2001;5(4):345-363.
2.
BaumTJosephGBKarampinosDCJungmannPMLinkTMBauerJS. Cartilage and meniscal T2 relaxation time as non-invasive biomarker for knee osteoarthritis and cartilage repair procedures. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(10):1474-1484.
BlackmanAJSmithMVFlaniganDCMatavaMJWrightRWBrophyRH. Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and clinical outcomes after cartilage repair surgery in the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(6):1426-1434.
5.
BrittbergMReckerDIlgenfritzJSarisDBF; SUMMIT Extension Study Group. Matrix-applied characterized autologous cultured chondrocytes versus microfracture: five-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(6):1343-1351.
6.
ChoiYSPotterHGChunTJ. MR imaging of cartilage repair in the knee and ankle. Radiographics. 2008;28(4):1043-1059.
7.
ChundruRBaumTNardoL, et al. Focal knee lesions in knee pairs of asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects with OA risk factors: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(8):e367-e373.
8.
DhollanderAAHuysseWCVerdonkPC, et al. MRI evaluation of a new scaffold-based allogenic chondrocyte implantation for cartilage repair. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75(1):72-81.
9.
DieckmeyerMRuschkeSCordesC, et al. The need for T(2) correction on MRS-based vertebral bone marrow fat quantification: implications for bone marrow fat fraction age dependence. NMR Biomed. 2015;28(4):432-439.
10.
DomayerSEKutscha-LissbergFWelschG, et al. T2 mapping in the knee after microfracture at 3.0 T: correlation of global T2 values and clinical outcome: preliminary results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(8):903-908.
11.
EbertJRRobertsonWBWoodhouseJ, et al. Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging-based outcomes to 5 years after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation to address articular cartilage defects in the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(4):753-763.
12.
FelsonDTMcLaughlinSGogginsJ, et al. Bone marrow edema and its relation to progression of knee osteoarthritis. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(5)(pt 1):330-336.
13.
FilardoGKonEDi MartinoA, et al. Is the clinical outcome after cartilage treatment affected by subchondral bone edema?Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(6):1337-1344.
14.
FoldagerCBGomollAHLindMSpectorM. Cell seeding densities in autologous chondrocyte implantation techniques for cartilage repair. Cartilage. 2012;3(2):108-117.
15.
GenoveseERongaMAngerettiMG, et al. Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation of the knee: mid-term and long-term follow-up by MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(1):47-56.
16.
GersingASFeuerriegelGHolweinC, et al. T2-relaxation time of cartilage repair tissue is associated with bone remodeling after spongiosa-augmented matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27(1):90-98.
17.
GlennREJrMcCartyECPotterHGJuliaoSFGordonJDSpindlerKP. Comparison of fresh osteochondral autografts and allografts: a canine model. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(7):1084-1093.
18.
GuermaziARoemerFWAlizaiH, et al. State of the art: MR imaging after knee cartilage repair surgery. Radiology. 2015;277(1):23-43.
19.
HendersonIFranciscoROakesBCameronJ. Autologous chondrocyte implantation for treatment of focal chondral defects of the knee: a clinical, arthroscopic, MRI and histologic evaluation at 2 years. Knee. 2005;12(3):209-216.
20.
HoburgALoerIKorsmeierK, et al. Matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation is an effective treatment at midterm follow-up in adolescents and young adults. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(4):2325967119841077.
21.
JosephGBBaumTAlizaiH, et al. Baseline mean and heterogeneity of MR cartilage T2 are associated with morphologic degeneration of cartilage, meniscus, and bone marrow over 3 years: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20(7):727-735.
22.
JungmannPMBaumTBauerJS, et al. Cartilage repair surgery: outcome evaluation by using noninvasive cartilage biomarkers based on quantitative MRI techniques?Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:840170.
23.
JungmannPMBruckerPUBaumT, et al. Bilateral cartilage T2 mapping 9 years after Mega-OATS implantation at the knee: a quantitative 3T MRI study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23(12):2119-2128.
24.
JungmannPMGersingASBaumannF, et al. Cartilage repair surgery prevents progression of knee degeneration. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(9):3001-3013.
25.
JungmannPMKrausMSNardoL, et al. T(2) relaxation time measurements are limited in monitoring progression, once advanced cartilage defects at the knee occur: longitudinal data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38(6):1415-1424.
26.
JungmannPMSalzmannGMSchmalHPestkaJMSudkampNPNiemeyerP. Autologous chondrocyte implantation for treatment of cartilage defects of the knee: what predicts the need for reintervention?Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(1):58-67.
27.
JungmannPMWelschGHBrittbergM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging score and classification system (AMADEUS) for assessment of preoperative cartilage defect severity. Cartilage. 2017;8(3):272-282.
28.
KarampinosDCRuschkeSDieckmeyerM, et al. Quantitative MRI and spectroscopy of bone marrow. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47(2):332-353.
29.
KimJKVaidyaRLeeSK, et al. Clinical and radiological changes after microfracture of knee chondral lesions in middle-aged Asian patients. Clin Orthop Surg. 2019;11(3):282-290.
30.
KraeutlerMJBelkJWPurcellJMMcCartyEC. Microfracture versus autologous chondrocyte implantation for articular cartilage lesions in the knee: a systematic review of 5-year outcomes. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(4):995-999.
31.
LansdownDAWangKCotterEDaveyAColeBJ. Relationship between quantitative MRI biomarkers and patient-reported outcome measures after cartilage repair surgery: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(4):2325967118765448.
32.
LiXMaBCBolbosRI, et al. Quantitative assessment of bone marrow edema-like lesion and overlying cartilage in knees with osteoarthritis and anterior cruciate ligament tear using MR imaging and spectroscopic imaging at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(2):453-461.
33.
LiessCLusseSKargerNHellerMGluerCC. Detection of changes in cartilage water content using MRI T2-mapping in vivo. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10(12):907-913.
34.
MaierCFTanSGHariharanHPotterHG. T2 quantitation of articular cartilage at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;17(3):358-364.
35.
MarcacciMAndrioloLKonEFilardoG. Bone marrow edema and results after cartilage repair. Ann Transl Med. 2015;3(10):132.
MinasTOguraTHeadrickJBryantT. Autologous chondrocyte implantation “sandwich” technique compared with autologous bone grafting for deep osteochondral lesions in the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(2):322-332.
38.
NiemeyerPPorichisSSteinwachsM, et al. Long-term outcomes after first-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(1):150-157.
39.
NiemeyerPSalzmannGSteinwachsM, et al. Presence of subchondral bone marrow edema at the time of treatment represents a negative prognostic factor for early outcome after autologous chondrocyte implantation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130(8): 977-983.
40.
NiemeyerPUhlMSalzmannGMMorscheidYPSudkampNPMadryH. Evaluation and analysis of graft hypertrophy by means of arthroscopy, biochemical MRI and osteochondral biopsies in a patient following autologous chondrocyte implantation for treatment of a full-thickness-cartilage defect of the knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(6):819-830.
41.
NiethammerTRLoitzschAHorngA, et al. Graft hypertrophy after third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation has no correlation with reduced cartilage quality: matched-pair analysis using T2-weighted mapping. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(10):2414-2421.
42.
NiethammerTRValentinSGulecyuzMF, et al. Bone marrow edema in the knee and its influence on clinical outcome after matrix-based autologous chondrocyte implantation: results after 3-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(5):1172-1179.
43.
NuernbergerSCyranNAlbrechtCRedlHVecseiVMarlovitsS. The influence of scaffold architecture on chondrocyte distribution and behavior in matrix-associated chondrocyte transplantation grafts. Biomaterials. 2011;32(4):1032-1040.
44.
OchsBGMuller-HorvatCAlbrechtD, et al. Remodeling of articular cartilage and subchondral bone after bone grafting and matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(4):764-773.
45.
OguraTMerkelyGBryantTWinalskiCSMinasT. Autologous chondrocyte implantation “segmental-sandwich” technique for deep osteochondral defects in the knee: clinical outcomes and correlation with magnetic resonance imaging findings. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(5):2325967119847173.
46.
PeterfyCGSchneiderENevittM. The Osteoarthritis Initiative: report on the design rationale for the magnetic resonance imaging protocol for the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(12):1433-1441.
47.
RoosEMEngelhartLRanstamJ, et al. ICRS recommendation document: patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with articular cartilage defects. Cartilage. 2011;2(2):122-136.
48.
RunerAJungmannPWelschG, et al. Correlation between the AMADEUS score and preoperative clinical patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in patients undergoing matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI). J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):87.
49.
RuschkeSWeidlichDWuMHochAKarampinosDC. Single-voxel short-TR multi-TI multi-TE (SHORTIE) STEAM for water–fat magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Proc Int Soc Magn Reson Med. 2019;27:4230.
50.
SalzmannGMNiemeyerPSteinwachsMKreuzPCSudkampNPMayrHO. Cartilage repair approach and treatment characteristics across the knee joint: a European survey. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(3):283-291.
51.
SalzmannGMPaulJBauerJS, et al. T2 assessment and clinical outcome following autologous matrix-assisted chondrocyte and osteochondral autograft transplantation. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17(12):1576-1582.
52.
SchreinerMMRaudnerMMarlovitsS, et al. The MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) 2.0 knee score and Atlas. Cartilage. Published online August17, 2019. doi: 10.1177/1947603519865308
53.
SieboldRSuezerFSchmittBTrattnigSEssigM. Good clinical and MRI outcome after arthroscopic autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage repair in the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(3):831-839.
54.
SmithHEMosherTJDardzinskiBJ, et al. Spatial variation in cartilage T2 of the knee. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;14(1):50-55.
55.
TadenumaTUchioYKumahashiN, et al. Delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage and T2 mapping for evaluation of reparative cartilage-like tissue after autologous chondrocyte implantation associated with atelocollagen-based scaffold in the knee. Skeletal Radiol. 2016;45(10):1357-1363.
56.
TakahashiTTinsBMcCallIWRichardsonJBTakagiKAshtonK. MR appearance of autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: correlation with the knee features and clinical outcome. Skeletal Radiol. 2006;35(1):16-26.
57.
TegnerYLysholmJ. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;198:43-49.
58.
TrattnigSMamischTCWelschGH, et al. Quantitative T2 mapping of matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation at 3 Tesla: an in vivo cross-sectional study. Invest Radiol. 2007;42(6):442-448.
59.
TuftsLSShetKLiangFMajumdarSLiX. Quantification of bone marrow water and lipid composition in anterior cruciate ligament-injured and osteoarthritic knees using three-dimensional magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016; 34(5):632-637.
60.
VasiliadisHSDanielsonBLjungbergMMcKeonBLindahlAPetersonL. Autologous chondrocyte implantation in cartilage lesions of the knee: long-term evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging and delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging technique. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(5):943-949.
61.
WangLSalibiNChangG, et al. Evaluation of subchondral bone marrow lipids of acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-injured patients at 3 T. Acad Radiol. 2014;21(6):758-766.
62.
WangLSalibiNChangG, et al. Assessment of subchondral bone marrow lipids in healthy controls and mild osteoarthritis patients at 3T. NMR Biomed. 2012;25(4):545-555.
63.
WelschGHMamischTCZakL, et al. Evaluation of cartilage repair tissue after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation using a hyaluronic-based or a collagen-based scaffold with morphological MOCART scoring and biochemical T2 mapping: preliminary results. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(5):934-942.
64.
WelschGHTrattnigSHughesT, et al. T2 and T2* mapping in patients after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation: initial results on clinical use with 3.0-Tesla MRI. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(6):1515-1523.
65.
WilsonAJMurphyWAHardyDCTottyWG. Transient osteoporosis: transient bone marrow edema?Radiology. 1988;167(3):757-760.
66.
ZanettiMBruderERomeroJHodlerJ. Bone marrow edema pattern in osteoarthritic knees: correlation between MR imaging and histologic findings. Radiology. 2000;215(3):835-840.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
