Evidence / Sources / E21
Moon HS et al. MOCART 2.0 score of 60 or greater at 1 year predicts favourable clinical outcomes. KSSTA 2025
What it can tell you
That a MOCART 2.0 score at one year tracks how patients are doing, and that a threshold around 60 separates them: above it, better patient-reported scores and lower osteoarthritis grades both at one year and at final follow-up. It gives an imaging number a meaning it otherwise lacks.
What it cannot
Whether the threshold applies to you. The cohort is tibiofemoral, mixed repair procedures rather than MACI specifically, and mean age 51.9 — older than most MACI series. The ROC analysis itself produced a 56–61 range and 60 is a round number chosen from inside it, not a biological boundary.
Everything on this site that leans on E21 — 0 claims
Nothing cites this source yet — it is part of the vetted evidence base for content still being written.
Read it like a sceptic
Level IV retrospective, n=86 — a threshold derived and tested on the same dataset tends to look better here than it will elsewhere.
The site's standing warning applies double: MRI appearance and symptoms decouple. SUMMIT found MACI clinically better than microfracture with no MRI difference at all.
Population
Tibiofemoral cartilage repair (mixed)
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.