A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Regenerative Therapies for Hip Cartilage Lesions and Their Outcomes.

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Chondral lesions of the hip in young, active patients are a recognised cause of pain, functional limitation, and early osteoarthritis. Although regenerative cartilage repair techniques are well established in the knee, hip-specific evidence remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated clinical outcomes and predictors of success following surgical and biologically augmented treatments for hip cartilage lesions. A systematic search of PubMed, OVID MEDLINE, and EBSCOHost was conducted in December 2024 to identify prospective and retrospective case series and comparative studies reporting outcomes following surgical or biologic interventions. Functional outcome was primarily assessed using the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and failure was defined as conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Random-effects meta-regression was used to evaluate predictors of endpoint mHHS and change-from-baseline mHHS (ΔmHHS), while failure outcomes were analysed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression. 27 studies comprising 30 intervention arms and 1059 patients were included. Cell-based and scaffold-assisted techniques, including autologous chondrocyte implantation, matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, and micro-fragmented adipose tissue transplantation, demonstrated the highest

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.