Are the biological and biomechanical properties of meniscal scaffolds reflected in clinical practice? A systematic review of the literature.
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
MetadataShow full item record
Khan, W. (2019). Are the biological and biomechanical properties of meniscal scaffolds reflected in clinical practice? A systematic review of the literature.. International Journal of Molecular Sciences https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20030632
The aim of this PRISMA review was to assess whether the CMI and Actifit scaffolds, when used in clinical practice, improve clinical outcomes and demonstrate the ideal biological and biomechanical properties of scaffolds: being chondroprotective, porous, resorbable, and mature and promote regeneration of tissue. This was done by only including studies that assessed clinical outcome and used a scale to assess both integrity of the scaffold and its effects on articular cartilage via MRI. A search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov. 2457 articles were screened, from which eight studies were selected: four used Actifit, three used CMI and one compared the two. All studies reported significant improvement in at least one clinical outcome compared to baseline. Some studies suggested that the scaffolds appeared to show porosity, mature, resorb and/or have possible chondroprotective effects, as assessed by MRI. The evidence for clinical translation is limited by differences in study methodology and small sample sizes but is promising in terms of improving clinical outcomes in the short to mid-term. Higher level evidence, with MRI and histological evaluation of the scaffold and articular cartilage, is now needed to further determine whether these scaffolds exhibit these useful properties.
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20030632
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/289335
Attribution 4.0 International
Licence URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/