Microfracture for cartilage repair in the knee: current concepts and limitations of systematic reviews
Editorial Commentary

Microfracture for cartilage repair in the knee: current concepts and limitations of systematic reviews

Sang Jun Song1, Cheol Hee Park2

1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, 2Department of Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to: Cheol Hee Park, MD. Department of Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, 23 Kyunghee-daero, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-872, Korea. Email: rdohead@hanmail.net.

Provenance: This is an invited article commissioned by the Section Editor Yu Zhang, MS (Department of Sport Medicine and Adult Reconstructive Surgery, Drum Tower Hospital, School of Medicine, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China).

Comment on: Orth P, Gao L, Madry H. Microfracture for cartilage repair in the knee: a systematic review of the contemporary literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019. [Epub ahead of print].

Submitted Apr 06, 2019. Accepted for publication May 07, 2019.

doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.05.11

This is an editorial on the article “Microfracture for cartilage repair in the knee: a systematic review of the contemporary literature” by Orth et al., published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, January 2019 (1).

Articular cartilage injuries are a common and challenging problem in the knee joint. Approximately 12% of the population was estimated to have a cartilage lesion in the knee (2). The prevalence of cartilage lesions was up to 66% in knee arthroscopic procedures (3,4). It is expected that the recent growth in sports participation will further increase the prevalence of cartilage lesions (5). Cartilage lesions have the potential to progress into larger and higher grade disease, ultimately resulting in osteoarthritis, because cartilage has almost no intrinsic healing capacity due to its avascular nature and minimal chondrocyte migration and propagation (2,6).

Microfracture (MFx) is a marrow stimulation technique achieved by subchondral bone perforation to recruit autologous mesenchymal stem cells to a cartilage defect (7). The recruited stem cells differentiate into fibrochondrocytes, which fill and remodel the injured area to form a fibrocartilage clot. The clot is composed primarily of type I collagen and is different from the native hyaline cartilage, which contains a large amount of type II collagen (8). The procedure has gained popularity over the last decades, and some surgeons have considered it as first-line treatment for cartilage injury (7). This popularity might be due to the minimally invasive and technically simple procedure. Further, MFx has been shown as the most cost-effective procedure among the surgical options for cartilage lesion, including osteochondral autograft transfer (OATS) and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) (2,9). According to a large insurance database, about 78,000 MFx are performed annually in the United States (7).

Many previous studies have reported the advantages of MFx via short- to mid-term clinical and radiographic results (10,11). However, there have been concerns regarding suboptimal repair with fibrocartilage infill, subchondral osseous overgrowth, questionable durability of fibrous cartilage, and deterioration of clinical improvement over long-term follow-up (8,9,11,12). Several issues, including usefulness of biologic augmentation and rehabilitation protocol, require further study (2,13).

The present study is a systematic review evaluating novel clinical data following MFx for knee articular cartilage injury and was conducted with contemporary studies published between 2013 and 2018. The study demonstrated the encouraging long-term clinical efficacy following ‘classic’ MFx without adjuvant treatment. However, the included study designs were of moderate quality and lacked appropriate standardization.

Although many studies on MFx have been accumulated, limited systematic reviews on the procedure have been conducted. Previous review articles provided generalized objective evidence on the clinical advantages and concerns of MFx (10,11). However, they included relatively old, non-contemporary studies that offered limited insight into current trends of studies about MFx (14). The present review of contemporary studies will be valuable in this regard and will help surgeons acquire up-to-date knowledge about MFx.

One of the most important issues of MFx is the sustainability of improved clinical outcomes following the procedure. The concern originates from different mechanical properties of fibrocartilage from native cartilage, which makes it less durable and more prone to wear over time (15). A systematic review by Mithoefer et al. (10) reported that MFx provided excellent short-term efficacy at 2 years following the procedure; however, after 2 years, 47% to 80% of patients showed a decline in function from the initial improvement. Recent reviews demonstrated that such suboptimal favorable status, lower than initial improvement but higher than preoperative level, was maintained over a mid-term follow-up period. Krych et al. (5) reported that the overall mean preoperative Tegner score was 2.7 and improved to 3.9 (1 year), 5.4 (2 years), and 5.0 (5 years) following MFx. A review by Kraeuter et al. (16), including studies with at least 5-year follow-up and an overall mean follow-up duration of 7 years, also showed that clinical advantages of MFx were maintained up to mid-term follow-up and were not significantly different from those of ACI in most included studies.

The present review, including six current studies with long-term follow-up (over 10 years), evaluated the long-term clinical advantage of MFx more clearly, compared with previous reviews. In aggregate, there seemed to be clinical efficacy during the 10–15 years after MFx; the procedure provided good function and pain relief within the 5 years after surgery, while less extensive but largely satisfying improved clinical outcomes were found up to postoperative 15 years. MFx seems to be a cost-effective procedure able to provide a long-term favorable result if accompanied by necessary concomitant surgery in appropriate indications.

It is encouraging that this long-term favorable result was obtained from classic MFx without any adjuvant procedure. Recently, classic MFx has been modified to increase efficacy by improving repair tissue quality and durability. Many biologic augmentation materials have been improved in the forms of intra-articular adjuvant (adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell, bone marrow concentrate, platelet-rich plasma, polyglycolic acid, and hyaluronic acid) or scaffolding matrix (collagen I/III matrix, chitosan polymer matrix, collagen II and glycosaminoglycans from porcine decellularized biomembrane, and polyglycolic acid-hyaluronic acid cell-free matrix) (13,15). Arshi et al. (13) described that, even though early studies were heterogenous and extremely limited in quality, individual trials regarding MFx with biologic augmentation reported both equivalent and superior clinical outcomes compared with an MFx-only procedure.

The reliability of a systematic review depends on the qualities of included studies. For this reason, several reviews on MFx have only used level I or II studies as their materials (2,9,14,17,18). In the present study, overall study quality was moderate; an average modified Coleman Methodology score (mCMS; generally used methodological quality assessment tool) was 64 points (categorized as fair). This score was similar to those of previous reviews by Mithoefer (average 58.2; fair) (10) and Krych et al. (average 62.3; fair) (5) but lower than that by Devit et al., who only included high-quality studies with a mCMS greater than 65 (average 79; good) (14). Although inclusion of only high-level studies would have risk of bias excluding valuable studies that did not report outcomes with a high level of evidence (10), systematic review with high-quality contemporary studies will be required to help generate more reliable current knowledge about MFx.

In addition, there was lack of standardized clinical evaluation, rehabilitation protocols, and radiographic assessment in the present study. There was more critical heterogeneity within the involved MFx studies compared with reviews on different procedures. Many reviews on MFx, including the present study, have shown severe heterogeneity in patient demographics (age, body mass index, duration of preoperative symptoms, or preoperative activity level), lesion characteristics (acute or chronic, size, or location), surgical technique or concomitant procedures (meniscectomy or ligament reconstruction), definition of failure (pain or additional procedure), rehabilitation protocol (frequency of CPM, duration until return to sports, or intensity of physical activities), and follow-up period (10,11,14,16,17). In particular, the lack of standardization in clinical evaluation was most serious (10,11,14,17). Mithoefer et al. (10) reported that as many as 15 different knee scales were used for clinical evaluation in their included studies; in the present study, 10 scales were used for evaluating clinical outcomes. Such heterogeneities have prohibited meta-analysis of aggregate data in many systematic reviews, including the present study (1,10,11,14,16,17). It will be necessary to standardize the included materials to perform a meta-analysis and achieve generalized objective evidence on MFx.

In conclusion, the present study will help orthopedic surgeons acquire up-to-date knowledge about commonly used MFx. The procedure seems to provide satisfying clinical results for a long-term follow-up period of 10–15 years if accompanied by necessary concomitant surgery in appropriate indications. These clinical efficacies of MFx are expected to be more consistent and prolonged according to development of biologic augmentation techniques (13). Systematic reviews using more standardized and high-quality studies are required to achieve valid and reliable evidence regarding MFx in the context of cartilage repair strategies.




Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. Orth P, Gao L, Madry H. Microfracture for cartilage repair in the knee: a systematic review of the contemporary literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Schrock JB, Kraeutler MJ, Houck DA, et al. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Surgical Treatment Modalities for Chondral Lesions of the Knee: Microfracture, Osteochondral Autograft Transplantation, and Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation. Orthop J Sports Med 2017;5:2325967117704634. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Aroen A, Loken S, Heir S, et al. Articular cartilage lesions in 993 consecutive knee arthroscopies. Am J Sports Med 2004;32:211-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Curl WW, Krome J, Gordon ES, et al. Cartilage injuries: a review of 31,516 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy 1997;13:456-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Krych AJ, Pareek A, King AH, et al. Return to sport after the surgical management of articular cartilage lesions in the knee: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017;25:3186-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Mundi R, Bedi A, Chow L, et al. Cartilage Restoration of the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Level 1 Studies. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:1888-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Redondo ML, Beer AJ, Yanke AB. Cartilage Restoration: Microfracture and Osteochondral Autograft Transplantation. J Knee Surg 2018;31:231-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Welton KL, Logterman S, Bartley JH, et al. Knee Cartilage Repair and Restoration: Common Problems and Solutions. Clin Sports Med 2018;37:307-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Aae TF, Randsborg PH, Luras H, et al. Microfracture is more cost-effective than autologous chondrocyte implantation: a review of level 1 and level 2 studies with 5 year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018;26:1044-52. [PubMed]
  10. Mithoefer K, McAdams T, Williams RJ, et al. Clinical efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage repair in the knee: an evidence-based systematic analysis. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:2053-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Erggelet C, Vavken P. Microfracture for the treatment of cartilage defects in the knee joint - A golden standard? J Clin Orthop Trauma 2016;7:145-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Hoemann CD, Tran-Khanh N, Chevrier A, et al. Chondroinduction Is the Main Cartilage Repair Response to Microfracture and Microfracture With BST-CarGel: Results as Shown by ICRS-II Histological Scoring and a Novel Zonal Collagen Type Scoring Method of Human Clinical Biopsy Specimens. Am J Sports Med 2015;43:2469-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Arshi A, Fabricant PD, Go DE, et al. Can Biologic Augmentation Improve Clinical Outcomes Following Microfracture for Symptomatic Cartilage Defects of the Knee? A Systematic Review. Cartilage 2018;9:146-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Devitt BM, Bell SW, Webster KE, et al. Surgical treatments of cartilage defects of the knee: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Knee 2017;24:508-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Case JM, Scopp JM. Treatment of Articular Cartilage Defects of the Knee With Microfracture and Enhanced Microfracture Techniques. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2016;24:63-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Kraeutler MJ, Belk JW, Purcell JM, et al. Microfracture Versus Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation for Articular Cartilage Lesions in the Knee: A Systematic Review of 5-Year Outcomes. Am J Sports Med 2018;46:995-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Goyal D, Keyhani S, Lee EH, et al. Evidence-based status of microfracture technique: a systematic review of level I and II studies. Arthroscopy 2013;29:1579-88. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Goyal D, Keyhani S, Goyal A, et al. Evidence-based status of osteochondral cylinder transfer techniques: a systematic review of level I and II studies. Arthroscopy 2014;30:497-505. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Song SJ, Park CH. Microfracture for cartilage repair in the knee: current concepts and limitations of systematic reviews. Ann Transl Med 2019;7(Suppl 3):S108. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.05.11