AMIC^® Chondro-Gide^® has been shown to be an effective treatment to repair cartilage lesions of all sizes in the knee. Clinical studies show successful treatment using AMIC^® Chondro-Gide^® with both mini-open and arthroscopic techniques for more than 10 years.¹

Better Performance than MFx Alone, After 2 Years

In a randomized, controlled 3-arm study of 47 patients in 2 centers², a significant deterioration in results was seen after 2 years following MFx alone (without Chondro-Gide^®). Pain and function scores (ICRS and modified Cincinnati scores) remained stable or even improved with AMIC^®, while pain and function scores for the MFx group decreased.

Arthroscopic or Mini-Arthrotomy, both Give Equally Good Results

In a retrospective study, Schagemann et al.³ compared the clinical outcomes of AMIC^® Chondro-Gide^® procedures that were performed as arthroscopic or mini-open surgeries. The study followed patients up to 2 years. According to the patients’ Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Lysholm scores, and Knee injury and Osteoarthrithis Outcome Scores (KOOS), both surgical approaches yielded equally positive results.

First Meta-Analysis of 12 AMIC^® Chondro-Gide^® Studies Including 375 Patients

Most recently, (2019) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of AMIC^® outcomes, the authors evaluated grade III/IV chondral and osteochondral lesions in the knee with a mean defect size of 4.24 cm² with up to 7 years follow-up.

The use of AMIC^® Chondro-Gide^® in defect sizes, which are above the recommended threshold for MFx, significantly reduced pain and improved function from baseline to follow-up.  The meta-analysis documents that the AMIC^® Chondro-Gide^® procedure significantly improves pain and functional outcomes in knee joints with chondral or osteochondral lesions. The results further demonstrate that the improvement was maintained over more than 5 years, which confirms the long-term success of AMIC^® Chondro-Gide^® in larger (>4 cm²) grade III and IV lesions.⁴

ACI-C and AMIC^® Chondro-Gide^® provide equally good results after 2 years 

Fossum, et al., (2019) conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled study to assess the  outcomes of ACI-C and AMIC^® in chondral and osteochondral defects of the distal femur and patella. No significant differences were seen between the outcomes of the ACI-C and AMIC^® techniques at 1 and 2 years.

The authors concluded that AMIC^® could be considered a clinically equal, but less expensive alternative to ACI-C, as AMIC^® is a 1-step procedure therefore far less resource-intensive.⁵

References

1. KAISER, N., et al. Clinical results 10 years after AMIC in the knee. Swiss Med Wkly, 2015, 145 (Suppl 210), 43S. (Clinical study)
2. VOLZ, M., et al. A randomized controlled trial demonstrating sustained benefit of Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis over microfracture at five years. Int Orthop, Apr 2017, 41(4), 797-804. (Clinical study)
3. SCHAGEMANN, J., et al. Mid-term outcome of arthroscopic AMIC for the treatment of articular cartilage defects in the knee joint is equivalent to mini-open procedures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, Jan 22 2018. (Clinical study)
4. STEINWACHS, M.R.,et al. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Evidence on the Use of Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis in the Knee. Cartilage. 2019:1947603519870846. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/31508990 (Review of clinical studies)
5. FOSSUM, V., et al. Collagen-Covered Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Versus  Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis: A Randomized Trial Comparing 2 Methods for Repair of Cartilage Defects of the Knee. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 019;7(9):2325967119868212. doi.org/10.1177/2325967119868212 (Clinical study)
6. Image on top of the page adapted from Volz et al. 2017 (Reference 2), CC BY 4.0