Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair
<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 eva...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-04-01
|
| Series: | Medicina |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/61/4/745 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849713773805305856 |
|---|---|
| author | Felix Conrad Oettl Louis Leuthard Moritz Brunner Vincent A. Stadelmann Stefan Preiss Michael Leunig Gian M. Salzmann Jakob Hax |
| author_facet | Felix Conrad Oettl Louis Leuthard Moritz Brunner Vincent A. Stadelmann Stefan Preiss Michael Leunig Gian M. Salzmann Jakob Hax |
| author_sort | Felix Conrad Oettl |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a04b4483f1bc4e5593f7879b0e04628f |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 1010-660X 1648-9144 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-04-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Medicina |
| spelling | doaj-art-a04b4483f1bc4e5593f7879b0e04628f2025-08-20T03:13:52ZengMDPI AGMedicina1010-660X1648-91442025-04-0161474510.3390/medicina61040745Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage RepairFelix Conrad Oettl0Louis Leuthard1Moritz Brunner2Vincent A. Stadelmann3Stefan Preiss4Michael Leunig5Gian M. Salzmann6Jakob Hax7Department of Hip and Knee Surgery, Schulthess Klinik, 8008 Zurich, SwitzerlandDepartment of Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, 8008 Zurich, SwitzerlandDepartment of Hip and Knee Surgery, Schulthess Klinik, 8008 Zurich, SwitzerlandDepartment of Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, 8008 Zurich, SwitzerlandDepartment of Hip and Knee Surgery, Schulthess Klinik, 8008 Zurich, SwitzerlandDepartment of Hip and Knee Surgery, Schulthess Klinik, 8008 Zurich, SwitzerlandDepartment of Hip and Knee Surgery, Schulthess Klinik, 8008 Zurich, SwitzerlandDepartment of Hip and Knee Surgery, Schulthess Klinik, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland<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.https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/61/4/745cartilageMOCARTpatient-reported outcome measuresminced cartilageAutoCart and level of evidence |
| spellingShingle | Felix Conrad Oettl Louis Leuthard Moritz Brunner Vincent A. Stadelmann Stefan Preiss Michael Leunig Gian M. Salzmann Jakob Hax Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair Medicina cartilage MOCART patient-reported outcome measures minced cartilage AutoCart and level of evidence |
| title | Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair |
| title_full | Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair |
| title_fullStr | Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair |
| title_full_unstemmed | Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair |
| title_short | Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair |
| title_sort | correlation and comparative evaluation of mocart and mocart 2 0 for assessing cartilage repair |
| topic | cartilage MOCART patient-reported outcome measures minced cartilage AutoCart and level of evidence |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/61/4/745 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT felixconradoettl correlationandcomparativeevaluationofmocartandmocart20forassessingcartilagerepair AT louisleuthard correlationandcomparativeevaluationofmocartandmocart20forassessingcartilagerepair AT moritzbrunner correlationandcomparativeevaluationofmocartandmocart20forassessingcartilagerepair AT vincentastadelmann correlationandcomparativeevaluationofmocartandmocart20forassessingcartilagerepair AT stefanpreiss correlationandcomparativeevaluationofmocartandmocart20forassessingcartilagerepair AT michaelleunig correlationandcomparativeevaluationofmocartandmocart20forassessingcartilagerepair AT gianmsalzmann correlationandcomparativeevaluationofmocartandmocart20forassessingcartilagerepair AT jakobhax correlationandcomparativeevaluationofmocartandmocart20forassessingcartilagerepair |