TY - JOUR
T1 - Editorial Commentary
T2 - Third-Generation Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation—Are Cells Seeded Onto the Scaffold Itself in It for the Long Run?
AU - McCrum, Christopher L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Arthroscopy Association of North America
PY - 2020/7
Y1 - 2020/7
N2 - Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an increasingly performed procedure, with rapidly evolving technology. First-generation ACI used a periosteal patch, leading to the second generation, in which a type I–type III collagen membrane is used to cover the autologous chondrocytes, and ultimately the third generation, in which autologous chondrocytes are seeded onto the scaffold itself. As third-generation, scaffold-based ACI techniques are becoming more widely available, interest in the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes continues to grow, especially given the high costs associated with these procedures. Several studies have now shown persistently improved clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up, which support the increasing utilization of third-generation ACI techniques. However, it is important to continue to develop our understanding of the limitations of and expectations with third-generation ACI, particularly regarding reoperation, as well as to continue to design high-quality long-term studies that can evaluate differences in technology.
AB - Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an increasingly performed procedure, with rapidly evolving technology. First-generation ACI used a periosteal patch, leading to the second generation, in which a type I–type III collagen membrane is used to cover the autologous chondrocytes, and ultimately the third generation, in which autologous chondrocytes are seeded onto the scaffold itself. As third-generation, scaffold-based ACI techniques are becoming more widely available, interest in the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes continues to grow, especially given the high costs associated with these procedures. Several studies have now shown persistently improved clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up, which support the increasing utilization of third-generation ACI techniques. However, it is important to continue to develop our understanding of the limitations of and expectations with third-generation ACI, particularly regarding reoperation, as well as to continue to design high-quality long-term studies that can evaluate differences in technology.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087121121&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85087121121&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.05.004
DO - 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.05.004
M3 - Editorial
C2 - 32624127
AN - SCOPUS:85087121121
SN - 0749-8063
VL - 36
SP - 1939
EP - 1941
JO - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
JF - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
IS - 7
ER -