Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Not Yet Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT05651997

Study Comparing Two Methods for the Treatment of Large Chondral and Osteochondral Defects of the Knee

The major objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the MACT versus the AMT for the treatment of large cartilage defects in patellofemoral and femorotibial injuries.

Not Yet Recruiting

Trial opening soon.

Get Notified

Key information

Age range

15 year–50 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Hôpital Fribourgeois- HFR, Fribourg, Canton of Fribourg, Switzerland

Loading trial locations.

About this study

Knee cartilage injuries are common, especially in young active adults, and have the potential to progress to osteoarthritis if left untreated, which would disable a large part of the population with joint functionality loss.The issue with knee cartilage remains in the fact that the tissue has very limited healing potential as it contains no blood vessels allowing a supply in cells for a proper regeneration. Many surgical techniques have been developed for cartilage repair, however, traditional methods have shown their limitations, especially in the case of large defects. More importantly, there is no consensus on novel surgical techniques. Therefore, the choice of a proper cartilage treatment becomes crucial Worldwide, because the aging population is increasing rapidly and there is a need to remain functional and independent as long as possible.

The overall objective of the present study is to compare two advanced surgical techniques for the treatment of large defects in cartilage: one technique consists of a more conventional and widely used approach, which stimulates the natural repair of the tissue by making micro-holes in the bone, allowing the recruitment cells from the underneath bone marrow and stabilize them with a membrane to repair the defect (technique called enhanced microfracture or AMT); and the other technique called MACT, consists of taking patients own cartilage cells from a small biopsy and growing them on a membrane to form a cartilage tissue in vitro, which is then implanted surgically at the location of the injury. This second technique has the advantage of cellular assistance in the surgery enabling to improve the regeneration.

The purpose of this study is to determine which technique (AMT or MACT) is the most appropriate to treat large cartilage injuries, in order to propose the best therapeutic option depending on the severity, size and location of the injury in the joint to the patient.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients aged between 15-50 years
  • Symptomatic chondral and osteochondral defect, grade III and IV according to the ICRS classification, and size between 2.5 and 15 cm2
  • Failure of a conservative treatment
  • Patient in good general condition, documented by an ASA score ≤ 2 (American Society of Anesthesiologists)
  • Patient considered compliant and able to participate in rehabilitation and pre- and post-operative follow-up
  • Consent to participate in the study

Exclusion criteria

  • All inflammatory and synovial pathologies
  • Diffuse or mirror lesions
  • An unfavorable biomechanical environment
  • Obesity grade II or higher, with a BMI>35 kg/m2
  • Active smoking/ active drug dependency (hard drugs)
  • Poor compliance
  • The patient is already part of another clinical trial that may compromise the present study
  • Vulnerable populations (except minors aged 15-18 years)
  • Presence of open growth plate (15-18 years)
  • Pregnancy or planned pregnancy during the study (MRI-related contra-indication)
  • Proven allergy to penicillin and gentamicin (for MACT group) and porcine collagen (for both groups)

For final inclusion, an additional exclusion criteria will be assessed after randomization:

  • Positive to HIV, HBV, HCV, syphilis.

Treatment and study plan

MACT

Procedure
  • A biopsy of healthy cartilage is taken from a non-weight bearing area of the knee joint during an arthroscopic procedure.
  • The biopsy is processed in the GMP accredited laboratory to isolate and amplify chondrocytes.
  • The cells are seeded and cultured on a collagen matrix (Chondro-Gide®, Geistlich Pharma)
  • The membrane is implanted and sutured onto the injured site.

Other names: Third generation of ACI

AMT

Procedure

This treatment combines the microfracture procedure with the application of a bilayer matrix of porcine type I/III collagen (Chondro-Gide, Geistlich Pharma) and the supplementation of autologous bone.

Other names: AMIC

Primary outcomes

  1. Patellofemoral joint-related function and quality-of-life are assessed using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

    Time frame: Change from baseline to 3, 6 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months post-implantation in the patellofemoral joint.

    KOOS includes five subscales: symptoms, pain, activities of daily living, function in sport/recreation, and knee-related quality of life. A score in points for each subscale will be calculated, and it ranges from 0 (worst score) to 100 (best score). Self-assessment by the patient

Secondary outcomes

  1. Femorotibial joint-related function and quality-of-life are assessed using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

    Time frame: Change from baseline to 3, 6 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months post-implantation in the femorotibial joint.

    KOOS includes five subscales: symptoms, pain, activities of daily living, function in sport/recreation, and knee-related quality of life. A score in points for each subscale will be calculated, and it ranges from 0 (worst score) to 100 (best score).Self-assessment by the patient

Other outcomes

  1. Self-reported physical pain and function are assessed by International Knee Documentation Committee score (IKDC)

    Time frame: Change from baseline to 3, 6 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months post-implantation in the patellofemoral and femorotibial joints.

    A score will be calculated, and it ranges from 0 (worst score) to 100 (best score).

  2. Rate of implantation-associated complications: serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious adverse reactions (SARs)

    Time frame: Up to 60 months.

    Post-implantation data collection: Types, probability and severity of treatment (inflammation, infection,pain, joint effusion, delamination, transplant rejection, fibrocartilage, incomplete cartilage repair).

  3. The cartilage repair is assesed by Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair

    Time frame: Change from baseline to 3, 6 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months post-implantation.

    MOCART scoring system is based on MRI analysis. A score in points will be calculated, and it ranges from 0 points (no repair) to 100 points (excellent cartilage defect repair)

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Robin MARTIN, MD

CONTACT

[email protected]

021 314 76 79 ext. 41

Virginie PHILIPPE, Ph-D

CONTACT

[email protected]

021 314 90 18 ext. 41

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois

Other

Collaborators

  • Lee Ann LAURENT APPLEGATE
  • Virginie PHILIPPE

Registry information

Official study title

Randomized Study Comparing Two Methods for the Treatment of Large Chondral and Osteochondral Defects of the Knee: Augmented Microfracture Technique vs. 3rd Generation of ACI

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2028
Study completion
2032
First posted
Dec 15, 2022
Registry last updated
Mar 12, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.