To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation: accelerated vs traditional rehab

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
June 2013

Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation: accelerated vs traditional rehab

Vol: 2| Issue: 5| Number:5| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

A randomized trial comparing accelerated and traditional approaches to postoperative weightbearing rehabilitation after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation: findings at 5 years

Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jul;40(7):1527-37. doi: 10.1177/0363546512445167. Epub 2012 Apr 26

Contributing Authors:
JR Ebert M Fallon MH Zheng DJ Wood TR Ackland

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

70 patients were randomized to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of an accelerated weight bearing rehabilitation program to a traditional rehabilitation program in patients who underwent matrix-induced autologous chrondrocyte implantation (MACI). Over a 5-year follow-up period there were no significant differences were seen between the two groups in clinical or radiographic outcomes.

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue