Talk:MACI

There are benefits of MACI treatment but equally there are risks. It is important to have full information about this treatment, yet some contributors appear determined to remove information regarding MACI risks. Do these contributors represent commercial interests?86.182.65.204 (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot copy and paste content from copyright sources. Please stop. Instead you can write about the risks in your own words backed up with reliable sources (not the maci.com website!). Please do. Joja  lozzo  18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing unsourced content
MACI advantages described by user are unverified and based upon opinion. Inclusion of unverified advantages of MACI means article is not objective and based upon unsourced material. IP User 86.183.131.234 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored content that was removed because it was unsourced. If we cannot source it reliably then it should be removed but it's not clear to me that no good sources exist. Joja lozzo  01:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I found this 2005 study: Autologous chondrocyte implantation versus matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects of the knee: a prospective, randomised study. There are probably newer sources also.
 * A 2007 review article: Treatment of Focal Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee, A Systematic Review.
 * That 2005 study was referenced in this review article: MACI - a new era?.
 * This 6 year follow up may be helpful: Sequential outcome following autologous chondrocyte implantation of the knee: A six-year follow-up.
 * Another review article: Clinical application of scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. Joja  lozzo  01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a short time (hopefully we'll remove it even earlier) just to stop the edit warring and to hopefully force a discussion and resolution to this. I'll leave the IP user a note as well. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have provided some sources above that could support expansion of the article. This is not in my areas of expertise or interest so I'm leaving that work to others. I will continue to monitor for copyright violations and content blanking. Joja lozzo  00:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The article entitled Clinical application of scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering referenced by Jojalozzo concludes ‘The technical and theoretical advantages of scaffold techniques have led to the (MACI) technique being favored by surgeons performing chondrocyte implantation. However, in this review of the short- or mid-term, clinical and histological results published by various studies, NONE of these methods were judged to be better than conventional ACI. In addition, there was no obvious ranking among the scaffolds available for clinical use at the present time. There is probably not an even distribution of chondrocytes. These methods seem to promote chondrocyte differentiation and formation of cartilage matrix, but so far, they have not resulted in improved clinical results.’ In other words there is a technical advantage in the that the operation is made easier for the surgeon to perform and MACI may requires less time on the operating table, but the recovery time of MACI in terms of rehabilitation and clinical results over short or mid-term is no better than ACI. Further, no mention is made of comparisons over the long term.

The 2005 study referred to by Jojalozzo (Autologous chondrocyte implantation versus matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects of the knee: a prospective, randomised study concludes by stating further long-term studies are required before the technique (MACI) is widely adopted. Whilst ACI is a relatively established treatment, MACI is certainly not. MACI is so new that in some respects it is still considered experimental. For example, MACI cannot even be said conclusively to prevent knee replacement, and there are still several clinical trials in progress. If there are advantages of MACI over ACI, provide evidence to prove it rather than stating an opinion.86.179.104.105 (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC) )

The article entitled 'Sequential outcome following autologous chondrocyte implantation of the knee: A six-year follow-up' referenced by Jojalozzo is not a direct comparison of MACI and ACI treatments so no conclusions regarding advantages of MACI over ACI can be drawn.86.179.104.105 (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The article entitled MACI - a new era? referenced by Jojalozzo does not compare MACI with ACI and concludes ‘No data is currently available demonstrating that this procedure prevents or delays the development of osteoarthritis. Unfortunately, the vast majority of clinical evidence regarding MACI is based on small case series using a variety of techniques on heterogenous patient populations, the results of which are evaluated with a plethora of incomparable outcome measures. These factors impair the ability to compare results between studies, which are often contradictory’ 86.179.104.105 (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The article entitled 'Treatment of Focal Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee A Systematic Review' referenced by Jojalozzo does not compare MACI with ACI and concludes ‘Our review of the best available evidence reveals no one technique produces superior clinical results for treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects.’ 86.179.104.105 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is very helpful. When you have opportunity please write this up in your own words and add it to the article. And feel free to do your own searches for other sources. If you want any help with wiki citations I can help with that. (Also, since your IP seems to change from day to day please consider creating a named account with a permanent user and talk page.) Thanks. Joja  lozzo  15:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete and Indistinguishable from ACI
Given the Wikipedia description it is literally impossible to distinguish MACI from ACI (Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation). What makes MACI different from ACI? It's impossible to tell from the article.

MACI in some articles is referred to as AMCI. What distinguishes MACI from ACI? I believe it has to do something with concurrent microfracturing. Also some studies (at least of the hip; Fontana, 2012) have noted MACI superiority in results from ACI (i.e. in their study). This is article is brief, so much so, that there is distinguishing of what it is actually is. What is matrix-induced? How is that different from the much more popular ACI? It is all very vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.12 (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)