Next Article in Journal
The Role of Mid-Trimester BUN and Creatinine Assessment in Predicting Preeclampsia: Retrospective Case–Control Study
Previous Article in Journal
A Collagen–Elastin Regenerative Dermal Matrix May Generate Unfavorable Results in Head and Neck Postburn Scar Reconstruction: A Case Series
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 61
Issue 4
10.3390/medicina61040745
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair

by
Felix Conrad Oettl
1,2,*,
Louis Leuthard
3,
Moritz Brunner
1,
Vincent A. Stadelmann
3,
Stefan Preiss
1,
Michael Leunig
1,
Gian M. Salzmann
1 and
Jakob Hax
1,4
1
Department of Hip and Knee Surgery, Schulthess Klinik, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
2
Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY 10021, USA
3
Department of Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
4
Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2025, 61(4), 745; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040745
Submission received: 2 March 2025 / Revised: 11 April 2025 / Accepted: 16 April 2025 / Published: 18 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sports Medicine and Sports Traumatology)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
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.

1. Introduction

Chondral and osteochondral lesions refer to acute or chronic defects involving the articular cartilage and, in some cases, the underlying subchondral bone. Chondral lesions are confined to the cartilage surface, while osteochondral lesions affect both the cartilage and the subchondral bone. The prevalence of chondral lesions is substantial, with studies reporting cartilage abnormalities in 60–65% of arthroscopic procedures [1,2]. Untreated lesions cause higher mechanical stress on the surrounding intact cartilage [3]; have an influence on the subchondral bone [4], as well as on the intra-articular milieu with an increase in cytokine concentration [5]; and can thus lead to the premature onset of osteoarthritis (OA). There are several surgical techniques, like minced cartilage implantation (MCI), AutoCart (AC), autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), and microfracturing (MF), for cartilage repair. Clinical radiological follow-up assessments of such methods remain the subject of current research and are important for establishing effective treatment strategies for diverse cartilage defects.
While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) [6,7] are clinically appropriate to evaluate overall joint health and burden of disease, they neglect to report on the quality of the repair tissue. MRI has emerged as the preferred technique for evaluating the structural characteristics of cartilage lesions and monitoring the progression of repair tissue [8,9].
Advanced MRI techniques have significantly improved the assessment of cartilage repair, offering non-invasive alternatives to second-look arthroscopy. Quantitative MRI methods, including T2 mapping, T1rho, dGEMRIC (delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage), and diffusion-weighted imaging, provide insights into the biochemical composition and ultrastructure of repair tissue [9,10,11]. The Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score was introduced in 2004 [12,13] and has been used in numerous trials since [14,15,16]. With advancements in understanding of the osteochondral unit’s biology and progress in MRI techniques [17,18], the role of the subchondral bone in the process of cartilage repair was recognized, eventually leading to the development of the MOCART 2.0 [19]. The MOCART 2.0 reworked most variables, enabling a more granular assessment, eliminating the need for multiple MRI sequences, and increasing the emphasis of the subchondral bone [12,19].
This study aimed to compare MOCART and MOCART 2.0 scores following various cartilage repair techniques (MCI, AC, ACI, and MF), with follow-up periods ranging from 6 months to 5 years, and to evaluate their correlation with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We hypothesize that MOCART and MOCART 2.0 scores will demonstrate a strong correlation, with MOCART 2.0 yielding significantly higher values, while both will show poor correlation with clinical outcomes. These findings will contribute to the evidence base guiding clinical decision-making in cartilage repair by clarifying relationships between surgical techniques, structural repair assessment methods, and patient-reported function.

2. Methods and Materials

2.1. Study Design

This single-center retrospective study used data extracted from our clinical information system (CIS) and from our institutional registry to evaluate and compare the efficacy of the MOCART and MOCART 2.0 scoring systems in assessing cartilage repair on postoperative MRI scans. The correlation between these MRI scoring systems and changes in PROMs from baseline was examined.
Ethical approval for our registry on lower extremity disorders, including the validation of assessment instruments, was obtained from the local ethics committee of the Canton of Zurich (KEK-ZH 2015-0258) on 23 June 2015. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection, and all data analyzed were completed in line with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its amendments.

2.2. Patient Selection

A total of 111 patients aged 18 to 80 years who underwent open or arthroscopic cartilage repair surgery for chondral and/or osteochondral lesions involving the femoral condyles, tibial plateau, trochlea, or patella of the knee joint between 2015 and 2022 at our institution were included. The eligible surgical procedures were MCI, ACI, AC, and MF. Traumatic cartilage lesions and those resulting from osteochondritis dissecans were included. Patients who underwent concomitant cartilage repair procedures at multiple sites within the same knee joint were also included, and the largest defect was evaluated. The availability of at least one postoperative MRI scan was mandatory for inclusion in the study.

2.3. Surgical Techniques

Prior to surgery, all patients underwent preoperative MRI and standard knee radiographs for diagnostic evaluation and surgical planning. The definitive indication for performing cartilage repair surgery was established upon standard arthroscopic examination of the knee. Intraoperative grading of the cartilage defect was conducted in accordance with the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) classification guidelines [20].
Chondral and osteochondral lesions were treated with either an open or arthroscopic approach utilizing MCI, AC, MF, or two-stage ACI, respectively [21,22,23,24]. In all cartilage repair procedures mentioned, the defects were first debrided and prepared to achieve stable and healthy cartilage margins. This was performed arthroscopically or open.

2.4. Patient-Reported Outcomes Collection

PROMs were extracted from the institutional registry, in which PROMs were prospectively collected preoperatively and at 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postoperatively. The questionnaires were sent out by post or e-mail and filled out by the patients at home. The following instruments were included: the IKDC [25] score about symptoms, sport activities, and knee function ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best), as well as the COMI [26] knee score, a short multidimensional (pain, function, disability, quality of life) questionnaire ranging between 0 (best) and 10 (worst). For correlation analysis, both IKDC and COMI were analyzed as changes from baseline (cIKDC, cCOMI)

2.5. Radiographic Data Collection and Assessment

Preoperative 3-T MR images of the knee were assessed from multiple independent scanners. A trained investigator blinded to surgical outcomes evaluated the MRIs using the Area Measurement and Depth and Underlying Structures (AMADEUS) scoring system [27] to quantify the severity of chondral and osteochondral defects prior to cartilage repair procedures. Postoperative MRIs are not established as standard of care and therefore were performed on various MRI scanners in and out of the center as required on a patient-by-patient basis. The indication for a postoperative MRI was given based on clinical presentation, especially in patients with persistent symptoms. For the evaluation of the repair tissue, the original MOCART [12,13] and the recently published MOCART 2.0 [19] were utilized on the full range of 0 (worst) to 100 (best) points. MRIs were analyzed in a PACS client (JiveX Version 5.3.0.7, Visus Health IT GmbH, Bochum, Germany).
Compared to the original MOCART system, MOCART 2.0 introduced several modifications. While the original MOCART [12,13] included 9 variables, the MOCART 2.0 [19] was reduced to 7 variables, with adjustments made to 4 of the remaining variables (Table 1).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed in RStudio using R version 4.3.1 (Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2021). Shapiro–Wilk was used to test the dataset for normality. Continuous variables demonstrating normality were compared between groups by independent Student t-tests. Pearson’s correlation coefficient assessed linear relationships between MOCART and MOCART 2.0 scores with time since surgery and changes from baseline in COMI and IKDC. MRI scans were matched with the chronologically closest PROMs available, with a maximum of two months between the MRI acquisition and PROM collection. Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation, and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all assessments. A post hoc power analysis was performed for all statistically significant results using Gpower (3.1.9.7).

3. Results

Of the included 111 patients, a total of 180 MRIs with assignable PROMs were available and were used for analysis. The mean follow-up was 15.3 ± 14.0 months after surgery. Patient properties and lesion characteristics are presented in Table 2.

3.1. Radiographic Outcomes

MOCART and MOCART 2.0 showed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.84, p < 0.001), with all subgroups showing moderate to strong correlations. Post hoc power analysis showed a power of 1 for all subscores and the total score (Table 3).

3.2. Relationship Between MOCART/MOCART 2.0 and Time of MRI

The correlation between time since surgery and radiographic score was neither significant for MOCART (r = 0.14, p = 0.05) nor MOCART 2.0 (r = 0.06, p = 0.4). However, the signal intensity of repair tissue subscores of both MOCART and MOCART 2.0 did show a significant increase over time (r = 0.17, p = 0.02 and r = 0.15, p = 0.04, respectively).

3.3. Relationship Between MOCART/MOCART 2.0 and PROMs

COMI and IKDC scores showed improvement from baseline throughout the follow-up period. No associations between MOCART or MOCART 2.0 scores and changes in PROMs were observed (cCOMI; r = 0.06, p = 0.442; r = 0.08, p = 0.303; cIKDC; r = 0.06, p = 0.477; r = 0.08, p = 0.3293) when pooling techniques and timepoints. In the AC subgroup, a statistically significant correlation was observed between both MOCART and MOCART 2.0 scores, as well as cCOMI and cIKDC at multiple postoperative timepoints. Significant correlation persisted in the combined timepoint analysis (cCOMI: MOCART r = 0.45, p = 0.0197; MOCART 2.0 r = 0.43, p = 0.027; cIKDC: MOCART r = 0.6, p = 0.0015; MOCART 2.0 r = 0.73, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the MCI subgroup showed statistically significant correlations for cIKDC at the 24-month timepoint with MOCART and at the 12-month timepoint for MOCART 2.0 (r = 1, p < 0.001; r = 0.67, p = 0.0173); however these findings were based on small subgroups (n = 5 and n = 12, respectively). All other subgroups failed to show a statistically significant correlation between MOCART scores and PROMS (Table 4 and Table 5).
For MOCART, the MCI subgroup at 24 months showed a strong correlation with cIKDC (r = 1.00, power = 1, n = 5), while the AC subgroup demonstrated significant correlations with both cCOMI and cIKDC at 12 months (r = 0.64 and 0.65, power = 0.614 and 0.634, n = 11) and at 60 months (r = 0.45 and 0.60, power = 0.659 and 0.913, n = 25). Similarly, for MOCART 2.0, the AC subgroup at 12 and 24 months showed strong correlations (r = 0.72–0.80, power = 0.657–0.912, n = 9–11), as well as at 60 months (r = 0.73, power = 0.993, n = 25).
Associations between the clinical outcomes, denoted as cCOMI and cIKDC scores, and the individual subscores of the MOCART and MOCART 2.0 scoring systems were also evaluated. Numerous subscores across surgical methods and timepoints exhibited statistically significant correlation. Integration into the border and integration into adjacent cartilage most consistently showed a greater decrease in COMI and increase in IKDC across various timepoints and methodologies.

4. Discussion

The key findings of this study are (i) the strong correlation of the MOCART 2.0 with the original MOCART, (ii) the significantly higher MOCART 2.0 score compared to the original MOCART score, (iii) statistically significant association between MOCART scores and PROMs in the AC subgroup but not in the other techniques, and (iv) the MOCART 2.0 not showing superior correlation with clinical outcomes.
The clinical relevance of MRI scores, particularly the MOCART score, has been debated ever since their introduction [12,28,29,30]. Large discrepancies have been shown in the range of correlation coefficients, as well as their statistical significance, ranging from poor correlation without statistical significance to excellent correlation with high statistical significance, not only in composite scores but also in subcategories of the respective scores, which is in line with what we found for the majority of subgroups in our analysis [12,28,31,32]. This heterogeneity of the MRI score correlation with clinical outcomes is continued in the MOCART 2.0 [33,34,35]. Significant correlations between PROMS and both MOCART scores in the AC and MCI subgroups, not in the MF and ACI subgroups, confirming the heterogeneous results of others, were found. Conversely, correlation with the respective subscores showed high levels of correlation, especially with border integration metrics. It has to be noted that the PROMs in patients undergoing procedures which do not, in general, affect the subchondral bone (AC, MCI) correlated more strongly with both MOCART scores.
Our findings of inconsistent correlations between imaging metrics and clinical outcomes are further corroborated by recent literature. A 2023 investigation of autologous minced cartilage repair reported moderate MOCART 2.0 scores (62.3 ± 17.4) alongside satisfactory clinical outcomes yet demonstrated similar limitations in establishing clear correlations between radiographic and functional results, mirroring the heterogeneity we observed, particularly in the MF and ACI subgroups [36]. This pattern of disconnect between imaging and clinical measures was reinforced by a 2021 systematic review finding no statistically significant associations between MOCART scores and established tools, like IKDC, across knee and talus repairs [37]. In contrast, and highlighting the complexity we encountered, a 2024 study on patellofemoral cartilage repair found that higher MOCART scores correlated significantly with PASS achievement (p = 0.011), though it failed to demonstrate relationships with MCID for KOOS QoL [38]. These mixed results from contemporary research reinforce our observation that MRI scoring systems correlate differently across repair techniques, with our AC subgroup showing stronger correlations than other techniques. Such variability suggests that current radiographic assessment tools, while valuable, remain insufficient as standalone outcome predictors, especially in the clinically symptomatic population we examined, where imaging findings must be interpreted within the broader clinical context.
Schreiner et al. [19] compared the ICCs using the MOCART 2.0 of two experienced examiners (ICC 0.84) with that of an experienced versus an inexperienced examiner, who only had the MOCART atlas as a guide (ICC 0.57). Thus, the MOCART 2.0 requires a certain level of experience to correctly read the MRI images and should therefore remain in the hands of experienced examiners.
MOCART score changes over time have been shown to be heterogeneously dispersed in the body of literature, which is also discussed as a cause for the lack of correlation between MRI scores and clinical outcomes [39]. When evaluating such results, one, however, has to account for the limitation of such studies being underpowered, as is ours, as there are limited patients receiving postoperative MRIs. While the process and timeframe of graft maturation, and therefore morphology, is well established, resulting in increased MRI scores in early follow-up, the literature on long-term graft quality is heterogenous. Prospective or retrospectively matched studies in a diverse patient population are required to formulate a more definitive answer [12,39,40,41]. A significant increase in the MOCART score was found over time. Furthermore, significant positive correlations of the “Signal intensity of repair tissue” subscore in both scoring systems were detectable.
Systematic reviews have failed to identify associations between MRI metrics and clinical outcomes following cartilage repair procedures [28,29]. De Windt et al. assessed 32 investigations, concluding that more sophisticated imaging techniques might be a requisite for reliable post-procedural outcome prognostication in this population [28]. The lack of correlation between MOCART parameters and clinical outcome measures may also relate to the precise post-surgical interval at which MRI assessment is performed, as well as the lack of power in respective studies [40,41].
Literature assessing the correlation between MOCART 2.0 and clinical outcomes remains sparse due to its novelty. Casari et al. investigated the relationship between PROMs and MOCART and MOCART 2.0 in AMIC-treated osteochondral lesions of the talus, failing to find a significant correlation between radiographic and clinical scores [39]. Goller et. al., however, found a significant correlation between MOCART 2.0 and Delta IKDC between multiple subsets and timepoints in their analysis of retropatellar matrix-associated chondrocyte transplantation [34].
The current study exclusively included patients with unplanned follow-up MRI examinations conducted within 5 years post-operatively for patients presenting with recent trauma, pain, or undergoing revision surgery. Consequently, lower radiographic scores and PROMs were expected to be relative to previously published data [42,43,44]. Given that follow-up MRI scans in this analysis were only conducted for clinical indications, it is reasonable to hypothesize that higher average radiographic scores, as well as PROMs, may have been attained if data from the entire cohort of patients undergoing cartilage repair surgery were analyzed, irrespective of clinical presentation. This restriction to symptomatic patients narrows the range of observed data, thereby limiting the study’s ability to accurately assess the true correlation across the full spectrum of investigated variables.
The primary limitation to be noted is the heterogeneity in cartilage repair techniques used, which themselves evolved over time, possibly disguising significant correlations. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, the exact timepoint of MRI can vary and lead to a lack of consistency in the MRI scanner used across the patient cohort. The radiological measurements were performed by only one experienced examiner, though the quality of the data evaluation can be rated as high. Lastly, despite the more realistic scenario, the heterogeneity of non-cartilage injuries, as well as concomitant non-cartilage repair procedures performed simultaneously in our patient population, has to be seen as a limitation. Randomized controlled trials with homogenous patient populations and isolated cartilage injuries, as well as isolated cartilage repairs, would be required to evaluate the importance of morphological assessment on clinical outcomes more precisely.

5. Conclusions

The MOCART 2.0 score, while yielding significantly higher absolute values, does not demonstrate superior predictive capability for clinical outcomes across various cartilage repair techniques. Based on these findings, we recommend reporting both MOCART and MOCART 2.0 scores in cartilage repair studies to maintain comparability across the literature, despite the additional workload this entails. Further investigation of the MOCART 2.0 is warranted, particularly through prospective comparative studies with the original MOCART, to fully establish its clinical utility and validate its enhanced assessment parameters.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.C.O. and J.H.; methodology, L.L.; formal analysis, L.L.; investigation, F.C.O., M.B. and J.H.; writing—original draft, F.C.O.; writing—review & editing, F.C.O., S.P., M.L., G.M.S., V.A.S. and J.H.; visualization, G.M.S.; supervision, V.A.S., G.M.S. and J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the local ethics committee of the Canton of Zurich (KEK-ZH 2015-0258) on 23 June 2015.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

Salzmann G.M. is a consultant for Arthrex. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

COMICore Outcome Measures and Index
ACAutoCart
ACIAutologous Chondrocyte Implantation
AMADEUSArea Measurement and Depth and Underlying Structures
cCOMIChange in Core Outcome Measures and Index
cIKDCChange in Knee Documentation Committee
CISClinical Information System
ICRSInternational Cartilage Repair Society
MCIMinced Cartilage Implantation
MFMicrofracturing
MOCARTThe Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue
OAOsteoarthritis
PROMsPatient-Reported Outcome Measures

References

  1. Widuchowski, W.; Widuchowski, J.; Trzaska, T. Articular cartilage defects: Study of 25,124 knee arthroscopies. Knee 2007, 14, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Årøen, A.; Jones, D.G.; Fu, F.H. Arthroscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Cartilage Injuries. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 1998, 6, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gratz, K.R.; Wong, B.L.; Bae, W.C.; Sah, R.L. The effects of focal articular defects on cartilage contact mechanics. J. Orthop. Res. 2009, 27, 584–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Minas, T.; Nehrer, S. Current concepts in the treatment of articular cartilage defects. Orthopedics 1997, 20, 525–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fraser, A.; Fearon, U.; Billinghurst, R.C.; Ionescu, M.; Reece, R.; Barwick, T.; Emery, P.; Poole, A.R.; Veale, D.J. Turnover of type II collagen and aggrecan in cartilage matrix at the onset of inflammatory arthritis in humans: Relationship to mediators of systemic and local inflammation. Arthritis Rheum. 2003, 48, 3085–3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bekkers, J.E.; de Windt, T.S.; Raijmakers, N.J.; Dhert, W.J.; Saris, D.B. Validation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the treatment of focal cartilage lesions. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2009, 17, 1434–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kocher, M.S.; Steadman, J.R.; Briggs, K.K.; Sterett, W.I.; Hawkins, R.J. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee scale for various chondral disorders of the knee. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2004, 86, 1139–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Guermazi, A.; Roemer, F.W.; Alizai, H.; Winalski, C.S.; Welsch, G.; Brittberg, M.; Trattnig, S. State of the Art: MR Imaging after Knee Cartilage Repair Surgery. Radiology 2015, 277, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Trattnig, S.; Winalski, C.S.; Marlovits, S.; Jurvelin, J.S.; Welsch, G.H.; Potter, H.G. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cartilage Repair: A Review. Cartilage 2011, 2, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jungmann, P.M.; Baum, T.; Bauer, J.S.; Karampinos, D.C.; Erdle, B.; Link, T.M.; Li, X.; Trattnig, S.; Rummeny, E.J.; Woertler, K.; et al. Cartilage repair surgery: Outcome evaluation by using noninvasive cartilage biomarkers based on quantitative MRI techniques? BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 840170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lineham, B.; Wijayathunga, H.; Moran, E.; Shuweihdi, F.; Gupta, H.; Pandit, H.; Wijayathunga, N. A systematic review demonstrating correlation of MRI compositional parameters with clinical outcomes following articular cartilage repair interventions in the knee. Osteoarthr. Cartil. Open 2023, 5, 100388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Marlovits, S.; Singer, P.; Zeller, P.; Mandl, I.; Haller, J.; Trattnig, S. Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) for the evaluation of autologous chondrocyte transplantation: Determination of interobserver variability and correlation to clinical outcome after 2 years. Eur. J. Radiol. 2006, 57, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Marlovits, S.; Striessnig, G.; Resinger, C.T.; Aldrian, S.M.; Vecsei, V.; Imhof, H.; Trattnig, S. Definition of pertinent parameters for the evaluation of articular cartilage repair tissue with high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Eur. J. Radiol. 2004, 52, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Aldrian, S.; Zak, L.; Wondrasch, B.; Albrecht, C.; Stelzeneder, B.; Binder, H.; Kovar, F.; Trattnig, S.; Marlovits, S. Clinical and radiological long-term outcomes after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte transplantation: A prospective follow-up at a minimum of 10 years. Am. J. Sports Med. 2014, 42, 2680–2688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Niemeyer, P.; Laute, V.; John, T.; Becher, C.; Diehl, P.; Kolombe, T.; Fay, J.; Siebold, R.; Niks, M.; Fickert, S.; et al. The Effect of Cell Dose on the Early Magnetic Resonance Morphological Outcomes of Autologous Cell Implantation for Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Am. J. Sports Med. 2016, 44, 2005–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Verdonk, P.; Dhollander, A.; Almqvist, K.F.; Verdonk, R.; Victor, J. Treatment of osteochondral lesions in the knee using a cell-free scaffold. Bone Jt. J. 2015, 97-B, 318–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schoenbauer, E.; Szomolanyi, P.; Shiomi, T.; Juras, V.; Zbýň, Š.; Zak, L.; Weber, M.; Trattnig, S. Cartilage evaluation with biochemical MR imaging using in vivo Knee compression at 3T-comparison of patients after cartilage repair with healthy volunteers. J. Biomech. 2015, 48, 3349–3355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hayter, C.; Potter, H. Magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage repair techniques. J. Knee Surg. 2011, 24, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schreiner, M.M.; Raudner, M.; Marlovits, S.; Bohndorf, K.; Weber, M.; Zalaudek, M.; Röhrich, S.; Szomolanyi, P.; Filardo, G.; Windhager, R.; et al. The MOCART (Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue) 2.0 Knee Score and Atlas. Cartilage 2021, 13 (Suppl. S1), 571S–587S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brittberg, M.; Peterson, L. Introduction of an articular cartilage classification. ICRS Newsl. 1998, 1, 5–8. [Google Scholar]
  21. Schneider, S.; Ossendorff, R.; Holz, J.; Salzmann, G.M. Arthroscopic Minced Cartilage Implantation (MCI): A Technical Note. Arthrosc. Tech. 2021, 10, e97–e101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Wodzig, M.H.H.; Peters, M.J.M.; Emanuel, K.S.; Van Hugten, P.P.W.; Wijnen, W.; Jutten, L.M.; Boymans, T.A.; Loeffen, D.V.; Emans, P.J. Minced Autologous Chondral Fragments with Fibrin Glue as a Simple Promising One-Step Cartilage Repair Procedure: A Clinical and MRI Study at 12-Month Follow-Up. Cartilage 2022, 13, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Niemeyer, P.; Pestka, J.M.; Kreuz, P.C.; Erggelet, C.; Schmal, H.; Suedkamp, N.P.; Steinwachs, M. Characteristic complications after autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee joint. Am. J. Sports Med. 2008, 36, 2091–2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Steadman, J.R.; Rodkey, W.G.; Rodrigo, J.J. Microfracture: Surgical technique and rehabilitation to treat chondral defects. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2001, 391, S362–S369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Anderson, A.F.; Irrgang, J.J.; Kocher, M.S.; Mann, B.J.; Harrast, J.J. The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form:Normative Data. Am. J. Sports Med. 2006, 34, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bombardier, C. Outcome Assessments in the Evaluation of Treatment of Spinal Disorders: Summary and General Recommendations. Spine 2000, 25, 3100–3103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jungmann, P.M.; Welsch, G.H.; Brittberg, M.; Trattnig, S.; Braun, S.; Imhoff, A.B.; Salzmann, G.M. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score and Classification System (AMADEUS) for Assessment of Preoperative Cartilage Defect Severity. Cartilage 2017, 8, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. de Windt, T.S.; Welsch, G.H.; Brittberg, M.; Vonk, L.A.; Marlovits, S.; Trattnig, S.; Saris, D.B. Is magnetic resonance imaging reliable in predicting clinical outcome after articular cartilage repair of the knee? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Sports Med. 2013, 41, 1695–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Blackman, A.J.; Smith, M.V.; Flanigan, D.C.; Matava, M.J.; Wright, R.W.; Brophy, R.H. Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and clinical outcomes after cartilage repair surgery in the knee: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Sports Med. 2013, 41, 1426–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Migliorini, F.; Maffulli, N.; Eschweiler, J.; Driessen, A.; Tingart, M.; Baroncini, A. Reliability of the MOCART score: A systematic review. J. Orthop. Traumatol. 2021, 22, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tetta, C.; Busacca, M.; Moio, A.; Rinaldi, R.; Delcogliano, M.; Kon, E.; Filardo, G.; Marcacci, M.; Albisinni, U. Knee Osteochondral Autologous Transplantation: Long-term MR findings and clinical correlations. Eur. J. Radiol. 2010, 76, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Riyami, M.; Rolf, C. Evaluation of microfracture of traumatic chondral injuries to the knee in professional football and rugby players. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2009, 4, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Schreiner, M.M.; Raudner, M.; Röhrich, S.; Zalaudek, M.; Weber, M.; Kaiser, G.; Aldrian, S.; Chiari, C.; Windhager, R.; Trattnig, S. Reliability of the MOCART (Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue) 2.0 knee score for different cartilage repair techniques—A retrospective observational study. Eur. Radiol. 2021, 31, 5734–5745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Goller, S.S.; Heuck, A.; Erber, B.; Fink, N.; Rückel, J.; Niethammer, T.R.; Müller, P.E.; Ricke, J.; Baur-Melnyk, A. Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) 2.0 for the evaluation of retropatellar autologous chondrocyte transplantation and correlation to clinical outcome. Knee 2022, 34, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jung, M.; Ruschke, S.; Karampinos, D.C.; Holwein, C.; Baum, T.; Gersing, A.S.; Bamberg, F.; Jungmann, P.M. The Predictive Value of Early Postoperative MRI-Based Bone Marrow Parameters for Mid-Term Outcome after MACI with Autologous Bone Grafting at the Knee. Cartilage 2022, 13, 19476035221093061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Runer, A.; Ossendorff, R.; Öttl, F.; Stadelmann, V.A.; Schneider, S.; Preiss, S.; Salzmann, G.M.; Hax, J. Autologous minced cartilage repair for chondral and osteochondral lesions of the knee joint demonstrates good postoperative outcomes and low reoperation rates at minimum five-year follow-up. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2023, 31, 4977–4987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Migliorini, F.; Maffulli, N.; Aretini, P.; Trivellas, A.; Tingart, M.; Eschweiler, J.; Baroncini, A. Impact of tourniquet during knee arthroplasty: A bayesian network meta-analysis of peri-operative outcomes. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2021, 141, 1007–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Retzky, J.S.; Fletcher, C.; Rizy, M.; Burge, A.; Strickland, S.M. Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) Scores > 55 at 6 Months Postoperative Predict Ability to Achieve Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State at Minimum 1 Year Postoperative Following Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation for Grade IV Chondral Defects About the Patellofemoral Joint. Cartilage 2025, 16, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Casari, F.A.; Germann, C.; Weigelt, L.; Wirth, S.; Viehöfer, A.; Ackermann, J. The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis for Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus: Analyzing MOCART 1 and 2.0. Cartilage 2021, 13 (Suppl. S1), 639S–645S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gobbi, A.; Karnatzikos, G.; Scotti, C.; Mahajan, V.; Mazzucco, L.; Grigolo, B. One-Step Cartilage Repair with Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrated Cells and Collagen Matrix in Full-Thickness Knee Cartilage Lesions. Cartilage 2011, 2, 286–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ackermann, J.; Merkely, G.; Mestriner, A.B.; Shah, N.; Gomoll, A.H. Increased Chondrocytic Gene Expression Is Associated With Improved Repair Tissue Quality and Graft Survival in Patients After Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation. Am. J. Sports Med. 2019, 47, 2919–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Marlovits, S.; Aldrian, S.; Wondrasch, B.; Zak, L.; Albrecht, C.; Welsch, G.; Trattnig, S. Clinical and radiological outcomes 5 years after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation in patients with symptomatic, traumatic chondral defects. Am. J. Sports Med. 2012, 40, 2273–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Niemeyer, P.; Laute, V.; Zinser, W.; Becher, C.; Kolombe, T.; Fay, J.; Pietsch, S.; Kuźma, T.; Widuchowski, W.; Fickert, S. A Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Noninferiority Trial to Compare the Clinical Efficacy of Matrix-Associated Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation With Spheroid Technology Versus Arthroscopic Microfracture for Cartilage Defects of the Knee. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2019, 7, 2325967119854442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Niemeyer, P.; Laute, V.; Zinser, W.; John, T.; Becher, C.; Diehl, P.; Kolombe, T.; Fay, J.; Siebold, R.; Fickert, S. Safety and efficacy of matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation with spheroid technology is independent of spheroid dose after 4 years. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2020, 28, 1130–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Comparison of the compositions of MOCART and MOCART 2.0.
Table 1. Comparison of the compositions of MOCART and MOCART 2.0.
Variables (MOCART/MOCART2.0 if Diverse)MOCART [12,13]MOCART 2.0 [19]
Degree of defect repair and filling of the defect/volume fill of the cartilage defect2020
Integration to border zone/integration into adjacent cartilage1515
Surface of the repair tissue1010
Structure of the repair tissue510
Signal intensity of the repair tissue3015
Subchondral lamina5-
Subchondral bone5-
Adhesions5-
Effusion5-
Bony defect or bony overgrowth-10
Subchondral changes-20
TOTAL100100
MOCART Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue.
Table 2. Patient properties and lesion characteristics.
Table 2. Patient properties and lesion characteristics.
CharacteristicN = 111 1ACI, N = 36 1AC, N = 16 1MCI, N = 22 1MF, N = 37 1p-Value
Age [years]35 ± 1034 ± 936 ± 1333 ± 1038 ± 90.205
BMI [kg/m2]24.7 ± 3.623.8 ± 3.324.7 ± 4.323.9 ± 3.026.0 ± 3.80.048
Weight [kg]78 ± 1476 ± 1477 ± 1375 ± 1282 ± 140.166
Sex 0.800
 Male72 (65%)21 (58%)11 (69%)15 (68%)25 (68%)
 Female39 (35%)15 (42%)5 (31%)7 (32%)12 (32%)
ASA Class 0.948
 171 (64%)24 (67%)10 (63%)13 (59%)24 (65%)
 239 (35%)12 (33%)6 (38%)9 (41%)12 (32%)
 31 (0.9%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (2.7%)
Symptom duration [d]21 ± 2728 ± 3417 ± 2030 ± 3311 ± 120.004
Initial traumatic event69 (63%)27 (75%)12 (75%)7 (33%)23 (62%)0.011
Defect size [cm2]3.24 ± 2.014.38 ± 2.062.91 ± 1.344.03 ± 2.021.81 ± 1.13<0.001
ICRS grade 0.556
 385 (86%)30 (86%)11 (79%)13 (81%)31 (91%)
 414 (14%)5 (14%)3 (21%)3 (19%)3 (8.8%)
Defect location
 Patella35 (32%)21 (58%)2 (13%)9 (41%)3 (8.1%)<0.001
 Trochlea31 (28%)12 (33%)5 (31%)2 (9.1%)12 (32%)0.149
 Med. Femoral condyle45 (41%)9 (25%)9 (56%)7 (32%)20 (54%)0.033
 Lat. Femoral condyle10 (9.0%)2 (5.6%)2 (13%)3 (14%)3 (8.1%)0.642
 Other2 (1.8%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)2 (5.4%)>0.999
AMADEUS Score58 ± 1656 ± 1660 ± 1244 ± 1767 ± 10<0.001
COMI5.22 ± 1.695.14 ± 1.595.43 ± 1.485.26 ± 1.625.18 ± 1.950.928
IKDC48 ± 1447 ± 1447 ± 1651 ± 1248 ± 140.666
1 Mean ± SD; N (%), AMADEUS score averages calculated across defect locations. COMI: Core Outcome Measures Index, IKDC: International Knee Documentation Committee, AMADEUS: Area Measurement and Depth and Underlying Structures, ICRS: International Cartilage Repair Society.
Table 3. Comparison of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 and their correlation.
Table 3. Comparison of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 and their correlation.
MOCARTMean ± SDMOCART 2.0Mean ± SDpr-Correlationp-Correlation
Degree of defect repair and defect filling14.8 ± 4.7Volume of cartilage defect filling compared to native cartilage15.2 ± 4.70.2550.94<0.001
Integration to border10.1 ± 2.8Integration into adjacent cartilage10.3 ± 2.60.3770.92<0.001
Surface of the repair tissue5.9 ± 2.8Surface5.9 ± 2.70.8730.98<0.001
Structure of the repair tissue3.46 ± 2.32Structure7 ± 4.6<0.0010.98<0.001
Signal intensity of the repair tissue11 ± 6Signal intensity of the repair tissue9.95 ± 2.640.4190.78<0.001
Subchondral lamina1.52 ± 2.3Bony defect or bony overgrowth5.6 ± 3.0<0.0010.71<0.001
Subchondral bone1.36 ± 2.23Subchondral changes12 ± 6<0.0010.77<0.001
Adhesions4.52 ± 1.48---
Effusion4.65 ± 1.27---
Total MOCART58 ± 13Total MOCART 2.066 ± 13<0.0010.84<0.001
MOCART: Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue, r: Pearson correlation coefficient, p: significance.
Table 4. Subgroup correlations between MOCART and PROMs.
Table 4. Subgroup correlations between MOCART and PROMs.
MOCART6 Months12 Months24 Months60 MonthsCombined
cCOMIcIKDCcCOMIcIKDCcCOMIcIKDCcCOMIcIKDCcCOMIcIKDC
MF0.150.180.120.370.090.270.20.440.060.04
MCI0.330.390.50.530.541NANA0.180
AC0.290.650.640.650.080.22NANA0.450.6
ACI0.20.110.210.160.010.06NANA0.030.1
Combined0.030.010.130.110.130.20.230.150.060.06
Data displayed as Pearson correlation coefficient (r). In the presence of statistically significant correlation, r is printed in bold (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Subgroup correlations between MOCART 2.0 and PROMs.
Table 5. Subgroup correlations between MOCART 2.0 and PROMs.
MOCART 2.06 Months12 Months24 Months60 MonthsCombined
cCOMIcIKDCcCOMIcIKDCcCOMIcIKDCcCOMIcIKDCcCOMIcIKDC
MF0.030.030.310.620.020.090.070.430.080.15
MCI0.160.070.050.670.560.66NANA0.050.23
AC0.10.720.720.800.43NANA0.430.73
ACI0.150.020.160.040.050.14NANA0.030.06
Combined0.020.060.240.140.050.090.040.20.080.08
Data are displayed as Pearson correlation coefficients (r). In the presence of statistically significant correlation, r is printed in bold (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oettl, F.C.; Leuthard, L.; Brunner, M.; Stadelmann, V.A.; Preiss, S.; Leunig, M.; Salzmann, G.M.; Hax, J. Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair. Medicina 2025, 61, 745. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040745

AMA Style

Oettl FC, Leuthard L, Brunner M, Stadelmann VA, Preiss S, Leunig M, Salzmann GM, Hax J. Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair. Medicina. 2025; 61(4):745. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040745

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oettl, Felix Conrad, Louis Leuthard, Moritz Brunner, Vincent A. Stadelmann, Stefan Preiss, Michael Leunig, Gian M. Salzmann, and Jakob Hax. 2025. "Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair" Medicina 61, no. 4: 745. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040745

APA Style

Oettl, F. C., Leuthard, L., Brunner, M., Stadelmann, V. A., Preiss, S., Leunig, M., Salzmann, G. M., & Hax, J. (2025). Correlation and Comparative Evaluation of MOCART and MOCART 2.0 for Assessing Cartilage Repair. Medicina, 61(4), 745. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040745

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop