Ibarra, ClementeClementeIbarraVillalobos, EnriqueEnriqueVillalobosMadrazo-Ibarra, AntonioAntonioMadrazo-IbarraVelasquillo, CristinaCristinaVelasquilloMartínez-López, ValentínValentínMartínez-LópezIzaguirre, AldoAldoIzaguirreOlivos-Meza, AnellAnellOlivos-MezaCortes-Gonzalez, SocorroSocorroCortes-GonzalezPérez-Jiménez, Francisco JavierFrancisco JavierPérez-JiménezVargas-Ramirez, AlbertoAlbertoVargas-RamirezFranco-Sánchez, GilbertoGilbertoFranco-SánchezIbarra-Ibarra, Luis GuillermoLuis GuillermoIbarra-IbarraSierra-Suarez, LuisLuisSierra-SuarezAlmazán, ArturoArturoAlmazánOrtega-Sánchez, CarminaCarminaOrtega-SánchezTrueba, CesáreoCesáreoTruebaBarbosa Martin, FernandoFernandoBarbosa MartinArredondo-Valdes, ReynaldoReynaldoArredondo-ValdesChávez- Arias, DanielDanielChávez- Arias2022-11-242022-11-242021https://scripta.up.edu.mx/handle/20.500.12552/215510.1177/03635465211010487Background: Few randomized controlled trials with a midterm follow-up have compared matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) with microfracture (MFx) for knee cartilage lesions. Purpose: To compare the structural, clinical, and safety outcomes at midterm follow-up of MACT versus MFx for treating symptomatic knee cartilage lesions. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 48 patients aged between 18 and 50 years, with 1- to 4-cm2 International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade III to IV knee chondral lesions, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the MACT and MFx treatment groups. A sequential prospective evaluation was performed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T2 mapping, the MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) score, second-look arthroscopic surgery, patient-reported outcome measures, the responder rate (based on achieving the minimal clinically important difference for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] pain and KOOS Sport/Recreation), adverse events, and treatment failure (defined as a reoperation because of symptoms caused by the primary defect and the detachment or absence of >50% of the repaired tissue during revision surgery).Resource Types::text::journal::journal article