Does scaffold enhancement show significant superiority over microfracture alone for treating knee chondral defects? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised clinical trials.

Purpose Methods Results Conclusion Level of Evidence Chondral and osteochondral lesions in the knee are common conditions that significantly impair individuals' well‐being and can lead to osteoarthritis, imposing substantial burdens on healthcare systems. The limited natural healing capacity of articular cartilage necessitates innovative treatment strategies. Microfracture (MF) is a widely used technique for knee chondral defects, but its long‐term efficacy is often inadequate. Although recent randomised controlled trials have compared microfractures with scaffold‐enhanced therapies, a comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis are lacking.An extensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE databases following PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing microfractures alone to matrix‐induced chondrogenesis for knee chondral defects with at least a 12‐month follow‐up. Ten randomised controlled trials conducted between 2013 and 2024, enroling 378 patients, were included.The meta‐analysis showed no significant superiority of scaffolds over MF (<italic>p</italic> > 0.05) in International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome, Visual Analog Scale, and Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue scores at 12 and 24 months. However, individual studies suggested the potential benefits of scaffolds, especially in long‐term outcomes. Clinical improvements from MF typically decline after 2–3 years, underscoring the need for long‐term follow‐up in future research.Our meta‐analysis shows no significant difference between MF and MF with scaffold in treating knee cartilage defects, though some long‐term RCTs demonstrate statistically significant differences. The absence of a universally accepted algorithm for analysing knee chondral defects limits this study. Establishing reliable guidelines and standardised study protocols is essential to improve long‐term patient outcomes and the quality of future papers.Level I [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]