Clinical evidence

Read the finding. See the study design.

Nine supplied publications

The library spans mechanistic research, pre-clinical work and small human clinical reports. We keep those evidence types distinct and make limitations visible.

How the treatment approaches differ: Mytocel MSK uses tissue-derived micrografts from the patient's own auricular cartilage; PRP uses concentrated platelets and signalling proteins from blood; ChondroFiller is a cell-free collagen matrix for a focal defect; NanoACi combines cells, scaffold and biological support. — A description of how each approach is prepared and what it contains. The supplied library holds no head-to-head randomised comparison, so this is a mechanistic distinction rather than a claim that one performs better than another.

Label the evidence

Human clinical, mechanistic and pre-clinical records are identified before the title.

Show the denominator

Study size, population and follow-up are displayed next to reported outcomes.

State the limitation

Small, uncontrolled studies cannot support broad comparative or guaranteed claims.

Featured record · Marcarelli et al.

Three-year follow-up in eight patients with knee chondropathy.

n=8 case series3 years follow-upOKS · VAS and MRI

The paper reported clinical-score and MRI observations after autologous cartilage micrografts. Its long follow-up is valuable context, while the very small, uncontrolled design limits generalisation and does not establish comparative effectiveness.

Open PubMed record

Sagittal knee MRI at baseline from supplied study material — Baseline · sagittal

Sagittal knee MRI at follow-up from supplied study material — Follow-up · sagittal

Coronal knee MRI at baseline from supplied study material — Baseline · coronal

Coronal knee MRI at follow-up from supplied study material — Follow-up · coronal

Complete evidence index

Nine records, in supplied context.

Open the original record where available, or the relevant page within the supplied scientific booklet.

Download the complete booklet

Scientific review

Tissue regeneration: an overview from stem cells to micrografts

Astarita C, Arora CL, Trovato L · 2020

Biological foundations and the distinction between stem cells and tissue micrografts.

Open 02

In vitro and in vivo

Alar-nasal cartilage autologous micrografts and the Rigenera protocol

Ceccarelli G, Gentile P, Marcarelli M, et al. · 2017

Cartilage micrograft preparation in an osteochondral-lesion context; not a knee OA outcome study.

Open 03

Pre-clinical study

Intra-articular autologous cartilage micrografts for osteochondral repair

Desando G, Grigolo B, Pereira AD, et al. · 2021

Histological assessment in a rat osteochondral-defect model; pre-clinical evidence only.

Open 04

Preliminary clinical study

Biostimulation of knee cartilage using autologous micrografts

Dorta A, Baroni A, et al. · 2018

Early clinical experience in osteochondral lesions of the knee.

Open 05

Three-year case series

Cartilage micrografts for knee chondropathy: three-year follow-up

Marcarelli M, Zappia M, Rissolio L, et al. · 2021

Eight-patient uncontrolled cohort with clinical scores and MRI measurements; useful long-term context but not comparative evidence.

Open 06

Prospective observational study

Non-arthroscopic autologous cartilage micrografting for knee osteoarthritis

Tsoukas D, Muntean I, Simos C, Sabido-Vera R · 2023

Ten-patient open-label study with KOOS outcomes at one and six months; the authors call for larger randomised evaluation.

Open 07

Clinical report

Autologous grafts in avascular osteonecrosis of the femoral head

Marcarelli M, Fiammengo M, Trovato L, et al. · 2019

Application of autologous grafts in a femoral-head indication; not direct knee OA evidence.

Open 08

Mechanistic and pre-clinical

Autologous cartilage micrografts in cartilage repair

Viganò M, Tessaro I, Trovato L, et al. · 2018

Laboratory characterisation plus a three-horse pre-clinical evaluation; supports rationale rather than human efficacy claims.

Open 09

Pilot study

Autologous micrografting technology in managing osteoarthritis pain

Helito C, Pessei V, Zaniboni C, Muntean I, et al. · 2024

Ten-patient uncontrolled pilot using KOOS, WOMAC and VAS outcomes over twelve months.

Open

Claims discipline

What the website will—and will not—say.

Appropriate conformity marking and registration are essential, but do not by themselves substantiate efficacy claims. Each objective statement needs evidence at the level a reader would understand it.

Use directly

Descriptive pathway facts

Autologous sample
Mechanical processing
Point-of-care workflow
No laboratory expansion

Use with context

Study findings

Name the study design
Give the sample size
Link the source
State key limitations

Do not use

Unsupported certainty

Guaranteed outcome
Proven cartilage regeneration
Superior to other procedures
“MHRA approved”

Advertising guidance: ASA/CAP medical-device guidance ↗

Professional enquiries

Review the evidence with your clinical team.

Request the UK professional pack and speak to Actomed about the evidence, setup and onboarding pathway.

Get UK clinic pricing Book an introduction