Evidence / Sources / E16
Ebert JR, Janes GC, Wood DJ. Post-operative sport participation and satisfaction with return to activity after MACI. IJSPT 2020
Evidence strength 3 of 5
Prospective cohort · n = 150 (83 TF / 67 PF) · 2 yr follow-upMACI ITSELFFull text →What it can tell you
What actually happens to activity at two years in 150 unselected MACI patients: 85% satisfied with recreational return, 66% with sport, and fewer than six in ten improving even one Tegner point. The most honest expectation-setting dataset available.
What it cannot
Anything past two years, or anything about why — age, symptom duration and gender travelled with activity level; BMI, defect size and concomitant procedures did not.
Everything on this site that leans on E16 — 3 claims
Stage I · Before [patellofemoral]“Set expectations against the right cohort: patellofemoral repairs recover pain and daily function well, but sport and quality-of-life scores run lower than femoral condyle repairs …”Stage V · Impact [patellofemoral]“At two years, 85% of a mixed MACI cohort were satisfied with recreational return but only 66% with sport — and tibiofemoral location predicted better sport scores than patellofemor…”Benchmarks · Tegner activity level“2.97 → 4.09; 59% improved ≥1 point at 2 years — Prospective MACI cohort, 83 tibiofemoral / 67 patellofemoral”
Read it like a sceptic
Patient-reported activity, not measured load; satisfaction is relative to expectation, which surgery itself resets.
Population
MACI, knee
Selection policy
Sources enter the registry through docs/research — the evidence table records design, population, and size for every entry, and pages cannot cite anything outside it.