Intended for U.S. health care professionals only
Knee cartilage injuries will often get worse with time, if left untreated
A study of patients undergoing cell-based knee cartilage repair found that lesions can progress and new lesions can form as time between cartilage biopsy and implantation increases.1 For patients with ≤4 cm2 accessible defects of the knee, early diagnosis and treatment may minimize lesion progression and the need for open ACI.1 If conservative treatment has not worked to relieve pain associated with knee cartilage damage, MACI may be an appropriate treatment option.
Cartilage defect expansion1
0.6 cm² mean change in defect size between biopsy & implantation
0.11 cm² increase in defect expansion per month delay to implantation
New high-grade cartilage defects1
16.2% of patients developed a new high-grade cartilage defect
155 days mean time between cartilage biopsy & implantation

MACI is autologous chondrocyte implantation, simplified2
MACI is less invasive—may be done through a mini-arthrotomy or arthroscopy.
MACI is reproducible—regardless of implantation technique or defect size, MACI delivers a controlled, uniform dose of characterized cells to the defect area.
MACI is simplified—does not require supplemental suture fixation.
See how MACI works
The science behind MACI
MACI cartilage repair vs. microfracture: improvements in pain and function3
A statistically significantly greater percentage of patients treated with MACI experienced clinically meaningful improvements in both pain and function at 2 years when compared to microfracture.3
In a follow-up extension study, improvements in pain and function at Year 2 were maintained with MACI at Year 5.4
Mean patient-reported KOOS scores at Year 2 and Year 54
Baseline KOOS Scores for MACI implant patients:
37.1 Pain/15.4 Function
Baseline KOOS Scores for Microfracture patients:
35.2 Pain/11.9 Function
Patient-reported KOOS responder rates at Week 104
The responder rate was higher with MACI implant when compared with microfracture (P=0.016). Response is defined as ≥10-point improvement in both pain and function.3
MACI
Microfracture
MACI is a 3rd generation ACI, offering a simplified way to deliver cells2
MACI has established results from the SUMMIT trial and 5-year long-term extension.3,4
MACI has accrued nearly 10 years of clinical experience.5
MACI is the only biologic knee cartilage therapy to gain FDA approval through the Biologics License Application.6
MACI results have been reported in a growing body of literature, including nearly 50 publications and 5 randomized controlled trials.7
References: 1. Pettit RJ, Everhart JS, DiBartola AC, Blackwell RE, Flanigan DC. Time matters: knee cartilage defect expansion and high-grade lesion formation while awaiting autologous chondrocyte implantation. Cartilage. 2021;13(suppl 2):1802S-1808S. 2. Flanigan DC, Sherman SL, Chilelli B, et al. Consensus on rehabilitation guidelines among orthopedic surgeons in the United States following use of third-generation articular cartilage repair (MACI) for treatment of knee cartilage lesions. Cartilage. 2021;13(suppl 1): 1782S-1790S. 3. Saris D, Price A, Widuchowski W, et al; SUMMIT study group. Matrix-applied characterized autologous cultured chondrocytes versus microfracture: two-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(6):1384-1394. 4. Brittberg M, Recker D, Ilgenfritz J, Saris DBF; SUMMIT Extension Study Group. Matrix-applied characterized autologous cultured chondrocytes versus microfracture: five-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(6):1343-1351. 5. MACI® (autologous cultured chondrocytes on porcine collagen membrane) Prescribing Information. Cambridge, MA. Vericel Corporation; 2025. 6. Gudeman AS, Hinckel BB, Oladeji L, et al. Evaluation of commercially available knee cartilage restoration techniques stratified by FDA approval pathway. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(13):3598-3704. 7. Hadley CJ, Shi WJ, Murphy H, Tjoumakaris FP, Salvo JP, Freedman KB. The clinical evidence behind biologic therapies promoted at annual orthopaedic meetings: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(1):251-259.