Articular cartilage (AC) sheathes joint surfaces and minimizes friction in diarthrosis. The resident cell population, chondrocytes, are surrounded by an extracellular matrix and a multitude of proteins, which bestow their unique characteristics. AC is characterized by a zonal composition (superficial (tangential) zone, middle (transitional) zone, deep zone, calcified zone) with different mechanical properties. An overview is given about different testing (load tests) methods as well as different modeling approaches. The widely accepted biomechanical test methods, e.g., the indentation analysis, are summarized and discussed. A description of the biphasic theory is also shown. This is required to understand how interstitial water contributes toward the viscoelastic behavior of AC. Furthermore, a short introduction to a more complex model is given.

The wrist is by far the most differentiated section of the musculoskeletal system. The spectrum of wrist injuries ranges from minor injuries to complex traumas with simultaneous loss of functions, resulting in enormous economic costs. A proper understanding of the anatomy and biomechanics is essential for effective treatment, whether conservative or surgical; this applies to the wrist no less than to other parts of the human body. Here; information on the wrist anatomy; kinematics; and biomechanical behavior is presented, commencing with a brief explanation of the structure of its hard and soft tissues. Eight carpal bones in combination with two forearm bones (radius and ulna) construct the wrist joint. The motion of the wrist joint is initiated by the muscles of the forearm, and strong and short ligaments ensure the stability of the wrist. All of these components are essential to bringing functions to the wrist joint because these structures allow wrist mobility and sustainability. In addition, the kinematics of the wrist joint is presented and different biomechanical model approaches. The therapeutic (surgical) restoration of the balance between the load–bearing capacity and the actual stress on a joint is the prerequisite for a lifelong and trouble-free function of a joint. Regarding the complex clinical problems, however, a valid biomechanical wrist joint model would be necessary as assistance, to improve the success of systematized therapies based on computer–aided model–based planning and intervention.

Introduction: The potential of autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) to restore unipolar focal chondral defects of the knee is promising. However, the outcome compared to microfracturing (MFx) for certain defect sizes (2–3 cm²) is still uncertain. Therefore, the present study compared primary isolated AMIC versus MFx in a cohort of patients with borderline sized focal unipolar chondral defects of the knee at midterm follow-up. Methods: Patients with chondral defects of the knee who underwent AMIC or MFx were compared. An arthroscopic approach was used for MFx, and a minimally invasive parapatellar arthrotomy for AMIC. For those patients who underwent AMIC, a collagen membrane was used with fibrin glue. The patients answered independently: Visual Analogic Scale (VAS), Tegner Activity Scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and the Lysholm scores. Results: A total of 83 patients with a mean age of 30.2 and body mass index (BMI) of 26.9 kg/m² were recruited. Of them, 33.7% (28 of 83) were women, and 55.4% (46 of 83 patients) had defects in the right knee. The mean length of symptoms before surgery was 43.3 months. The mean size of the defect was 2.7 cm². The mean length of follow-up was 42.1 months. No difference was found in terms of symptoms and follow-up length, mean age and BMI, mean size of defect, sex, and side. The AMIC cohort reported greater IKCD (p > 0.0001), Lysholm (p = 0.002), VAS (p = 0.01), Tegner (p = 0.004) scores. The AMIC cohort reported lower rate of failure (p = 0.005) and revision surgery (p = 0.02). No difference was found in the rate of arthroplasty (p = 0.2). No delamination or hypertrophy were detected. Conclusion: AMIC demonstrated superiority over MFx for focal unipolar chondral defects of the knee. At approximately 40 months follow-up, the IKDC, Lysholm, and VAS scores were greater in the AMIC group. Patients treated with AMIC also demonstrated a higher level of sport activity, and lower rates of failure and revision surgeries.

Introduction: Evidence on the management of chondral defects of the patella arises from studies in which the patellofemoral joint was treated together with the femorotibial joint and primary and revision settings. Furthermore, the superiority of Autologous Matrix Induced Chondrogenesis (AMIC) over microfractures (MFx) for patellar chondral defects is uncertain. Therefore, the present study compared primary isolated AMIC versus MFx for focal unipolar chondral defects of the patellar facet joints at midterm follow-up. Methods: Patients undergoing AMIC or isolated MFx surgery for borderline-sized focal unipolar chondral defects of the patellar facet joints were followed at our institution. All surgeries were performed in the same fashion by experienced surgeons. A parapatellar arthrotomy was adopted in all surgeries. The outcomes of interest were: Visual Analogic Scale (VAS), Tegner Activity Scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and the Lysholm scores. The Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) was assessed by a blinded radiologist, who had not been involved in the clinical management of the patients. Results: 38 patients were enrolled in the present study: 27 underwent AMIC, and 11 MFx. The mean follow-up was 45.1 months. The mean age of the patients at baseline was 34.5 years. The mean size of the defect was 2.6 cm². The MFx cohort experienced a shorter length of the hospitalization (P = 0.008). There was no difference in terms of follow-up and previous symptoms duration, mean age, sex, side, defect size, and BMI. At last follow-up, the AMIC cohort reported greater IKDC (P = 0.01), Lysholm (P = 0.009), and Tegner (P = 0.02), along with a low rate of failure (P = 0.02). VAS was lower in the AMIC group (P = 0.002). No difference was found in the MOCART score (P = 0.09), rates of revision (P = 0.06), and arthroplasty (P = 0.2). Conclusion: The AMIC procedure achieves greater IKDC and Lysholm score, and a significant reduction of the VAS score in the management of patellar chondral defects. The Tegner scale demonstrated greater activity after AMIC procedure. Finally, the AMIC group evidenced a lower rate of failure. Similarity was found on MOCART score, rates of revision, and arthroplasty between the two procedures.

Introduction: Many procedures are available to manage cartilage defects of the talus, including microfracturing (MFx) and Autologous Matrix Induced Chondrogenesis (AMIC). Whether AMIC or MFx are equivalent for borderline sized defects of the talar shoulder is unclear. Thus, the present study compared the efficacy of primary isolated AMIC versus MFx for borderline sized focal unipolar chondral defects of the talar shoulder at midterm follow-up. Methods: Patients undergoing primary isolated AMIC or MFx for focal unipolar borderline sized chondral defects of the talar shoulder were recruited prospectively. For those patients who underwent AMIC, a type I/III collagen resorbable membrane was used. The outcomes of interest were: Visual Analogic Scale (VAS), Tegner Activity Scale, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS). The Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) was assessed by a blinded radiologist, who had not been involved in the clinical management of the patients. Data concerning complication rate and additional procedures were also collected. Results: The mean follow-up was 43.5 months. The mean age of the 70 patients at operation was 32.0 years, with a mean defect size of 2.7 cm². The mean length of hospitalization was shorter in the MFx cohort (p = 0.01). No difference was found between the two cohorts in terms of length of prior surgery symptoms and follow-up, mean age and BMI, sex and side, and defect size. At a mean follow-up of 43.5 months, the AOFAS (p = 0.03), VAS (p = 0.003), and Tegner (p = 0.01) scores were greater in the AMIC group. No difference was found in the MOCART score (p = 0.08). The AMIC group evidenced lower rates of reoperation (p = 0.008) and failure (p = 0.003). Conclusion: At midterm follow-up, AMIC provides better results compared to MFx.