MOCART与MOCART 2.0评估软骨修复的相关性及比较评价。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Felix Conrad Oettl, Louis Leuthard, Moritz Brunner, Vincent A Stadelmann, Stefan Preiss, Michael Leunig, Gian M Salzmann, Jakob Hax
{"title":"MOCART与MOCART 2.0评估软骨修复的相关性及比较评价。","authors":"Felix Conrad Oettl, Louis Leuthard, Moritz Brunner, Vincent A Stadelmann, Stefan Preiss, Michael Leunig, Gian M Salzmann, Jakob Hax","doi":"10.3390/medicina61040745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background and Objectives</i>: Chondral and osteochondral lesions can lead to osteoarthritis if untreated, making accurate assessment of cartilage repair outcomes essential for optimizing treatment strategies. The objective of this study was to compare MOCART and MOCART 2.0 and to evaluate the clinical utility of both across different surgical cartilage repair techniques and various time points. <i>Material and Methods</i>: This study included 111 patients (age: 35 ± 10, 35% female) who underwent cartilage repair surgery of the knee between September 2015 and March 2022. A total of 188 postoperative magnetic resonance images were evaluated using MOCART and MOCART 2.0. The correlations between both scores, as well as to the change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), were determined. <i>Results</i>: MOCART 2.0 scores (66 ± 13) were significantly higher than MOCART scores (58 ± 13, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Positive correlation was observed between scoring systems (r = 0.837, <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between MOCART or MOCART 2.0 scores and the change in PROMs. Noticeably, there was a statistically significant correlation between both MOCART and MOCART 2.0 in the AutoCart subgroup across multiple timepoints for the change in PROMs. <i>Conclusions</i>: Based on radiographic-clinical outcome discordance, clinicians should not rely solely on MOCART or MOCART 2.0 scores when evaluating cartilage repair success but instead prioritize patient-reported functional improvements while using imaging as a complementary assessment tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":49830,"journal":{"name":"Medicina-Lithuania","volume":"61 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12028356/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair.\",\"authors\":\"Felix Conrad Oettl, Louis Leuthard, Moritz Brunner, Vincent A Stadelmann, Stefan Preiss, Michael Leunig, Gian M Salzmann, Jakob Hax\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/medicina61040745\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Background and Objectives</i>: Chondral and osteochondral lesions can lead to osteoarthritis if untreated, making accurate assessment of cartilage repair outcomes essential for optimizing treatment strategies. The objective of this study was to compare MOCART and MOCART 2.0 and to evaluate the clinical utility of both across different surgical cartilage repair techniques and various time points. <i>Material and Methods</i>: This study included 111 patients (age: 35 ± 10, 35% female) who underwent cartilage repair surgery of the knee between September 2015 and March 2022. A total of 188 postoperative magnetic resonance images were evaluated using MOCART and MOCART 2.0. The correlations between both scores, as well as to the change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), were determined. <i>Results</i>: MOCART 2.0 scores (66 ± 13) were significantly higher than MOCART scores (58 ± 13, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Positive correlation was observed between scoring systems (r = 0.837, <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between MOCART or MOCART 2.0 scores and the change in PROMs. Noticeably, there was a statistically significant correlation between both MOCART and MOCART 2.0 in the AutoCart subgroup across multiple timepoints for the change in PROMs. <i>Conclusions</i>: Based on radiographic-clinical outcome discordance, clinicians should not rely solely on MOCART or MOCART 2.0 scores when evaluating cartilage repair success but instead prioritize patient-reported functional improvements while using imaging as a complementary assessment tool.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49830,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicina-Lithuania\",\"volume\":\"61 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12028356/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicina-Lithuania\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040745\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina-Lithuania","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040745","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:软骨和骨软骨病变如不治疗可导致骨关节炎,准确评估软骨修复结果对优化治疗策略至关重要。本研究的目的是比较MOCART和MOCART 2.0,并评估两者在不同手术软骨修复技术和不同时间点的临床应用。材料与方法:本研究纳入了2015年9月至2022年3月期间行膝关节软骨修复手术的111例患者(年龄:35±10,35%女性)。采用MOCART和MOCART 2.0对188张术后磁共振图像进行评价。确定两种评分之间的相关性,以及患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)的变化。结果:MOCART 2.0评分(66±13)显著高于MOCART评分(58±13),p < 0.001。各评分系统间存在正相关(r = 0.837, p < 0.001)。MOCART和MOCART 2.0得分与PROMs的变化无显著相关。值得注意的是,在多个时间点上,AutoCart子组中的MOCART和MOCART 2.0之间存在统计学上显著的相关性。结论:基于影像学与临床结果的不一致,临床医生在评估软骨修复成功时不应仅仅依赖MOCART或MOCART 2.0评分,而应优先考虑患者报告的功能改善,同时使用影像学作为补充评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair.

Background and Objectives: Chondral and osteochondral lesions can lead to osteoarthritis if untreated, making accurate assessment of cartilage repair outcomes essential for optimizing treatment strategies. The objective of this study was to compare MOCART and MOCART 2.0 and to evaluate the clinical utility of both across different surgical cartilage repair techniques and various time points. Material and Methods: This study included 111 patients (age: 35 ± 10, 35% female) who underwent cartilage repair surgery of the knee between September 2015 and March 2022. A total of 188 postoperative magnetic resonance images were evaluated using MOCART and MOCART 2.0. The correlations between both scores, as well as to the change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), were determined. Results: MOCART 2.0 scores (66 ± 13) were significantly higher than MOCART scores (58 ± 13, p < 0.001). Positive correlation was observed between scoring systems (r = 0.837, p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between MOCART or MOCART 2.0 scores and the change in PROMs. Noticeably, there was a statistically significant correlation between both MOCART and MOCART 2.0 in the AutoCart subgroup across multiple timepoints for the change in PROMs. Conclusions: Based on radiographic-clinical outcome discordance, clinicians should not rely solely on MOCART or MOCART 2.0 scores when evaluating cartilage repair success but instead prioritize patient-reported functional improvements while using imaging as a complementary assessment tool.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medicina-Lithuania
Medicina-Lithuania 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
1578
审稿时长
25.04 days
期刊介绍: The journal’s main focus is on reviews as well as clinical and experimental investigations. The journal aims to advance knowledge related to problems in medicine in developing countries as well as developed economies, to disseminate research on global health, and to promote and foster prevention and treatment of diseases worldwide. MEDICINA publications cater to clinicians, diagnosticians and researchers, and serve as a forum to discuss the current status of health-related matters and their impact on a global and local scale.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信