Top

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Systematic Review

Reliability of the MOCART score: a systematic review

Authors: Filippo Migliorini, Nicola Maffulli, Jörg Eschweiler, Arne Driessen, Markus Tingart, Alice Baroncini

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

The present systematic review analysed the available literature to assess reliability of the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score in the evaluation of knee and ankle osteochondral lesions.

Methods

All the studies using the MOCART score for knee and/or talus chondral defects were accessed in March 2021. A multivariate analysis was performed to assess associations between the MOCART score at last follow-up and data of patients at baseline, clinical scores and complications. A multiple linear model regression analysis was used.

Results

The MOCART score evidenced no association with patient age (P = 0.6), sex (P = 0.1), body mass index (P = 0.06), defect size (P = 0.9), prior length of symptoms (P = 0.9) or visual analogue scale (P = 0.07). For chondral defects of the knee, no statistically significant association was found between the MOCART score and the International Knee Documentation Committee (P = 0.9) and with the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scales (P = 0.2), Tegner Activity Scale (P = 0.2), visual analogue scale P = 0.07), rate of failure (P = 0.2) and revision (P = 0.9). For chondral defect of the talus, no statistically significant associations were found between the MOCART score and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score (P = 0.3), Tegner Activity Scale (P = 0.4), visual analogue scale (P = 0.1), rate of failure (P = 0.1) and revision (P = 0.7).

Conclusion

The MOCART score demonstrated no association with patient characteristics and with the surgical outcome in patients who underwent surgical management for knee and talus chondral defects.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Albano D, Martinelli N, Bianchi A, Giacalone A, Sconfienza LM (2017) Evaluation of reproducibility of the MOCART score in patients with osteochondral lesions of the talus repaired using the autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis technique. Radiol Med 122:909–917PubMedCrossRef

Casari FA, Germann C, Weigelt L, Wirth S, Viehofer A, Ackermann J. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis for osteochondral lesions of the talus: analyzing MOCART 1 and 2.0. Cartilage 2020: 1947603520946382.

van Dijk CN, Reilingh ML, Zengerink M, van Bergen CJ (2010) Osteochondral defects in the ankle: why painful? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:570–580PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Liu YW, Tran MD, Skalski MR, Patel DB, White EA, Tomasian A et al (2019) MR imaging of cartilage repair surgery of the knee. Clin Imaging 58:129–139PubMedCrossRef

Schuman L, Struijs PA, van Dijk CN (2002) Arthroscopic treatment for osteochondral defects of the talus. Results at follow-up at 2 to 11 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 84:364–368PubMedCrossRef

Recht M, White LM, Winalski CS, Miniaci A, Minas T, Parker RD (2003) MR imaging of cartilage repair procedures. Skeletal Radiol 32:185–200PubMedCrossRef

de Windt TS, Welsch GH, Brittberg M, Vonk LA, Marlovits S, Trattnig S et al (2013) Is magnetic resonance imaging reliable in predicting clinical outcome after articular cartilage repair of the knee? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 41:1695–1702PubMedCrossRef

Marlovits S, Striessnig G, Resinger CT, Aldrian SM, Vecsei V, Imhof H et al (2004) Definition of pertinent parameters for the evaluation of articular cartilage repair tissue with high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 52:310–319PubMedCrossRef

Kubosch EJ, Erdle B, Izadpanah K, Kubosch D, Uhl M, Sudkamp NP et al (2016) Clinical outcome and T2 assessment following autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis in osteochondral lesions of the talus. Int Orthop 40:65–71PubMedCrossRef

10.

Goebel L, Zurakowski D, Muller A, Pape D, Cucchiarini M, Madry H (2014) 2D and 3D MOCART scoring systems assessed by 9.4 T high-field MRI correlate with elementary and complex histological scoring systems in a translational model of osteochondral repair. Osteoarthr Cartil 22:1386–1395CrossRef

11.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

12.

Howick J CI, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Carl Heneghan, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Phillips B, Thornton H, Goddard O, Hodgkinson M. The 2011 Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653 2011.

13.

Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M (1994) Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 15:349–353PubMedCrossRef

14.

Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, Rodkey WG, Kocher MS, Steadman JR (2009) The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med 37:890–897PubMedCrossRef

15.

Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154PubMedCrossRef

16.

Higgins LD, Taylor MK, Park D, Ghodadra N, Marchant M, Pietrobon R et al (2007) Reliability and validity of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form. Joint Bone Spine 74:594–599PubMedCrossRef

17.

Marlovits S, Singer P, Zeller P, Mandl I, Haller J, Trattnig S (2006) Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) for the evaluation of autologous chondrocyte transplantation: determination of interobserver variability and correlation to clinical outcome after 2 years. Eur J Radiol 57:16–23PubMedCrossRef

18.

Gersing AS, Feuerriegel G, Holwein C, Suchowierski J, Karampinos DC, Haller B et al (2019) T2-relaxation time of cartilage repair tissue is associated with bone remodeling after spongiosa-augmented matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation. Osteoarthr Cartil 27:90–98CrossRef

19.

Schreiner MM, Raudner M, Marlovits S, Bohndorf K, Weber M, Zalaudek M, et al. The MOCART (Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue) 2.0 Knee Score and Atlas. Cartilage 2019: 1947603519865308.

20.

Lee KT, Choi YS, Lee YK, Cha SD, Koo HM (2011) Comparison of MRI and arthroscopy in modified MOCART scoring system after autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral lesion of the talus. Orthopedics 34:e356-362PubMed

21.

Albano D, Martinelli N, Bianchi A, Messina C, Malerba F, Sconfienza LM (2017) Clinical and imaging outcome of osteochondral lesions of the talus treated using autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis technique with a biomimetic scaffold. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:306PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

22.

Anders S, Goetz J, Schubert T, Grifka J, Schaumburger J (2012) Treatment of deep articular talus lesions by matrix associated autologous chondrocyte implantation–results at five years. Int Orthop 36:2279–2285PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

23.

Apprich S, Trattnig S, Welsch GH, Noebauer-Huhmann IM, Sokolowski M, Hirschfeld C et al (2012) Assessment of articular cartilage repair tissue after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation or the microfracture technique in the ankle joint using diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 Tesla. Osteoarthr Cartil 20:703–711CrossRef

24.

Astur DC, Lopes JC, Santos MA, Kaleka CC, Amaro JT, Cohen M (2018) Surgical treatment of chondral knee defects using a collagen membrane—autologus matrix-induced chondrogenesis. Rev Bras Ortop 53:733–739PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

25.

Aurich M, Bedi HS, Smith PJ, Rolauffs B, Muckley T, Clayton J et al (2011) Arthroscopic treatment of osteochondral lesions of the ankle with matrix-associated chondrocyte implantation: early clinical and magnetic resonance imaging results. Am J Sports Med 39:311–319PubMedCrossRef

26.

Baumfeld T, Baumfeld D, Prado M, Nery C (2018) All-arthroscopic AMIC((R)) (AT-AMIC) for the treatment of talar osteochondral defects: a short follow-up case series. Foot 37:23–27CrossRef

27.

Becher C, Ettinger M, Ezechieli M, Kaps C, Ewig M, Smith T (2015) Repair of retropatellar cartilage defects in the knee with microfracture and a cell-free polymer-based implant. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:1003–1010PubMedCrossRef

28.

DeSandis BA, Haleem AM, Sofka CM, O’Malley MJ, Drakos MC (2018) Arthroscopic treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus using juvenile articular cartilage allograft and autologous bone marrow aspirate concentration. J Foot Ankle Surg 57:273–280PubMedCrossRef

29.

Dhollander AA, Verdonk PC, Lambrecht S, Verdonk R, Elewaut D, Verbruggen G et al (2012) Short-term outcome of the second generation characterized chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of cartilage lesions in the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1118–1127PubMedCrossRef

30.

Di Cave E, Versari P, Sciarretta F, Luzon D, Marcellini L (2017) Biphasic bioresorbable scaffold (TruFit Plug((R))) for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of talus: 6- to 8-year follow-up. Foot 33:48–52CrossRef

31.

Galla M, Duensing I, Kahn TL, Barg A (2019) Open reconstruction with autologous spongiosa grafts and matrix-induced chondrogenesis for osteochondral lesions of the talus can be performed without medial malleolar osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:2789–2795PubMedCrossRef

32.

Gottschalk O, Altenberger S, Baumbach S, Kriegelstein S, Dreyer F, Mehlhorn A et al (2017) Functional medium-term results after autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis for osteochondral lesions of the talus: a 5-year prospective cohort study. J Foot Ankle Surg 56:930–936PubMedCrossRef

33.

Haleem AM, Ross KA, Smyth NA, Duke GL, Deyer TW, Do HT et al (2014) Double-plug autologous osteochondral transplantation shows equal functional outcomes compared with single-plug procedures in lesions of the talar dome: a minimum 5-year clinical follow-up. Am J Sports Med 42:1888–1895PubMedCrossRef

34.

Hoburg A, Loer I, Korsmeier K, Siebold R, Niemeyer P, Fickert S et al (2019) Matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation is an effective treatment at midterm follow-up in adolescents and young adults. Orthop J Sports Med 7:2325967119841077PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

35.

Karnovsky SC, DeSandis B, Haleem AM, Sofka CM, O’Malley M, Drakos MC (2018) Comparison of juvenile allogenous articular cartilage and bone marrow aspirate concentrate versus microfracture with and without bone marrow aspirate concentrate in arthroscopic treatment of talar osteochondral lesions. Foot Ankle Int 39:393–405PubMedCrossRef

36.

Koh YG, Kwon OR, Kim YS, Choi YJ, Tak DH (2016) Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells with microfracture versus microfracture alone: 2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Arthroscopy 32:97–109PubMedCrossRef

37.

Magnan B, Samaila E, Bondi M, Vecchini E, Micheloni GM, Bartolozzi P (2012) Three-dimensional matrix-induced autologous chondrocytes implantation for osteochondral lesions of the talus: midterm results. Adv Orthop 2012:942174PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

38.

Marlovits S, Aldrian S, Wondrasch B, Zak L, Albrecht C, Welsch G et al (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes 5 years after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation in patients with symptomatic, traumatic chondral defects. Am J Sports Med 40:2273–2280PubMedCrossRef

39.

Niemeyer P, Porichis S, Steinwachs M, Erggelet C, Kreuz PC, Schmal H et al (2014) Long-term outcomes after first-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee. Am J Sports Med 42:150–157PubMedCrossRef

40.

Ogura T, Merkely G, Bryant T, Winalski CS, Minas T (2019) Autologous chondrocyte implantation “segmental-sandwich” technique for deep osteochondral defects in the knee: clinical outcomes and correlation with magnetic resonance imaging findings. Orthop J Sports Med 7:2325967119847173PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

41.

Perdisa F, Filardo G, Sessa A, Busacca M, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M et al (2017) One-step treatment for patellar cartilage defects with a cell-free osteochondral scaffold: a prospective clinical and MRI evaluation. Am J Sports Med 45:1581–1588PubMedCrossRef

42.

Quirbach S, Trattnig S, Marlovits S, Zimmermann V, Domayer S, Dorotka R et al (2009) Initial results of in vivo high-resolution morphological and biochemical cartilage imaging of patients after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) of the ankle. Skeletal Radiol 38:751–760PubMedCrossRef

43.

Rosa D, Balato G, Ciaramella G, Soscia E, Improta G, Triassi M (2016) Long-term clinical results and MRI changes after autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee of young and active middle aged patients. J Orthop Traumatol 17:55–62PubMedCrossRef

44.

Sadlik B, Kolodziej L, Blasiak A, Szymczak M, Warchal B (2017) Biological reconstruction of large osteochondral lesions of the talar dome with a modified “sandwich” technique-midterm results. Foot Ankle Surg 23:290–295PubMedCrossRef

45.

Schneider U (2016) Controlled, randomized multicenter study to compare compatibility and safety of ChondroFiller liquid (cell free 2-component collagen gel) with microfracturing of patients with focal cartilage defects of the knee joint. J Ortop Surg 1:1–8

46.

Schuttler KF, Gotschenberg A, Klasan A, Stein T, Pehl A, Roessler PP et al (2019) Cell-free cartilage repair in large defects of the knee: increased failure rate 5 years after implantation of a collagen type I scaffold. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139:99–106PubMedCrossRef

47.

Siebold R, Suezer F, Schmitt B, Trattnig S, Essig M (2018) Good clinical and MRI outcome after arthroscopic autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage repair in the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:831–839PubMedCrossRef

48.

Shimozono Y, Donders JCE, Yasui Y, Hurley ET, Deyer TW, Nguyen JT et al (2018) Effect of the containment type on clinical outcomes in osteochondral lesions of the talus treated with autologous osteochondral transplantation. Am J Sports Med 46:2096–2102PubMedCrossRef

49.

Shimozono Y, Hurley ET, Nguyen JT, Deyer TW, Kennedy JG (2018) Allograft compared with autograft in osteochondral transplantation for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100:1838–1844PubMedCrossRef

50.

Usuelli FG, D’Ambrosi R, Maccario C, Boga M, de Girolamo L (2018) All-arthroscopic AMIC((R)) (AT-AMIC((R))) technique with autologous bone graft for talar osteochondral defects: clinical and radiological results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:875–881PubMedCrossRef

51.

Valderrabano V, Miska M, Leumann A, Wiewiorski M (2013) Reconstruction of osteochondral lesions of the talus with autologous spongiosa grafts and autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis. Am J Sports Med 41:519–527PubMedCrossRef

52.

Weigelt L, Hartmann R, Pfirrmann C, Espinosa N, Wirth SH (2019) Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis for osteochondral lesions of the talus: a clinical and radiological 2- to 8-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 47:1679–1686PubMedCrossRef

53.

Wiewiorski M, Miska M, Kretzschmar M, Studler U, Bieri O, Valderrabano V (2013) Delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage of the ankle joint: results after autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC)-aided reconstruction of osteochondral lesions of the talus. Clin Radiol 68:1031–1038PubMedCrossRef

Title: Reliability of the MOCART score: a systematic review
Authors: Filippo Migliorini
Nicola Maffulli
Jörg Eschweiler
Arne Driessen
Markus Tingart
Alice Baroncini
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 1590-9921
Electronic ISSN: 1590-9999
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-021-00603-w

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Reliability of the MOCART score: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Antibiotic cement coating in orthopedic surgery: a systematic review of reported clinical techniques

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients over 70 years of age: a systematic review

Problems, complications, and reinterventions in 4893 onlay humeral lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasties: a systematic review (part I—complications)

Custom-made reverse shoulder arthroplasty for severe glenoid bone loss: review of the literature and our preliminary results

Long-term outcomes of distal locking in extracapsular fractures treated with trochanteric Gamma3 nails

Outcomes and complications of the reamer irrigator aspirator versus traditional iliac crest bone graft harvesting: a systematic review and meta-analysis