Micro or Nano Does not affect the Functional Outcomes in the Midterm Follow-up

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Bone marrow stimulation techniques are themost commonly preferred options in the treatment of articularcartilage damage due to many features. Although nanofracturemethod that was developed in order to improve this techniquehas proven efficacy in animal models and in vitro studies,functional outcomes of nanofracture have not been shown inactual patients. In this study, our purpose was to compare theclinical outcomes of nanofracture technique and traditionalmicrofracture technique in the knee joint.Material and Methods: Patients operated using themicrofracture technique as group 1 (n=22) and patientsoperated using the Nanofx (Arthrosurface Inc., Franklin,Massachusetts) technique as group 2 (n=20) were prospectivelyevaluated. Demographic characteristics of the patients, defectsize and localization were recorded. Patients with isolatedcartilage damage who had ICRS Grade 3-4 cartilage lesionand no concomitant pathologies were included in the study.Each surgical procedure was performed by the same surgeonby following the same surgical protocol. Clinical outcomesin the patients were assessed using Modified Cincinnati andTegner-Lysholm scoring systems at months 6, 12, 24, 36 and48.Results: Calculated mean follow-up periods were 50.8±3.1and 51.2±3.2 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. There was nostatistically significant difference between the groups in termsof the defect and demographic characteristics of the patients.In the follow-up of patients using functional scoring, there wasno statistically significant difference in Lysholm (p=0.294)and Cincinnati (p=0.234) scores between the two groups.Conclusion: There was no difference in the mid-term betweenthe functional outcomes of microfracture and nanofracturetechniques in the treatment of cartilage lesions.