Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • For Training Programs
  • Authors
  • Editorial Policy
  • Editorial Board
  • Content Methodology
  • Advertising Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Back to Operative Surgery
Sports Medicine

Microfracture Technique

Comprehensive guide to microfracture for articular cartilage repair - surgical technique, patient selection, rehabilitation, and outcomes for orthopaedic examination

Core Procedure
intermediate
By OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team

Orthopaedic clinicians and medical editors • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Editorial boardMethodologyReview policyReport a correction
High Yield Overview

MICROFRACTURE TECHNIQUE

Marrow Stimulation | Fibrocartilage Repair | First-Line for Small Lesions

Under 2cm²Ideal lesion size
3-4mmHole spacing
2-4mmHole depth into subchondral bone
85%Short-term good/excellent results

INDICATIONS BY LESION SIZE

Under 2cm²
PatternIdeal for microfracture
TreatmentFirst-line treatment
2-4cm²
PatternAcceptable for microfracture
TreatmentConsider alternatives
Over 4cm²
PatternMicrofracture less effective
TreatmentOATS/ACI preferred

Critical Must-Knows

  • Fibrocartilage forms, not hyaline - mechanically inferior but functional
  • Marrow stimulation - holes penetrate subchondral plate to release MSCs
  • 3-4mm spacing between holes to preserve bone bridges
  • Protected weight-bearing 6-8 weeks essential for healing
  • Deterioration after 2-5 years is common - time-limited benefit

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    Microfracture creates fibrocartilage (Type I collagen) not hyaline (Type II)
  • "
    Best results in: small lesions, young patients, intact subchondral bone
  • "
    CPM or early ROM critical for cartilage maturation
  • "
    Alternative techniques: nanofracture, AMIC (augmented microfracture)

Critical Microfracture Exam Points

Fibrocartilage NOT Hyaline

Key exam point: Microfracture produces Type I collagen fibrocartilage, not Type II collagen hyaline cartilage. Biomechanically inferior with lower compressive stiffness and wear resistance.

Size Matters

Under 2cm² optimal. Larger lesions have progressively worse outcomes. Over 4cm² should be treated with OATS, ACI, or allograft. Examiners will test size threshold knowledge.

Rehabilitation Critical

Non-weight-bearing 6-8 weeks is essential. CPM or aggressive ROM promotes fibrocartilage maturation. Premature loading causes fibrocartilage failure.

Time-Limited Benefit

Deterioration at 2-5 years is well documented. Short-term results good (85%) but decline over time. May serve as bridge to definitive treatment.

Quick Decision Guide - Cartilage Treatment Selection

Lesion SizeFirst-LineAlternativeAvoid
Under 2cm²MicrofractureOATS (single plug)Large procedures for small lesions
2-4cm²OATS or ACIMicrofracture if containedMicrofracture as first choice
Over 4cm²ACI or OCAOATS mosaicMicrofracture (poor outcomes)
Bipolar (kissing)Address alignment firstCombined procedureIsolated cartilage surgery
Mnemonic

MICROMICRO - Key Principles

M
Marrow stimulation
Penetrate subchondral plate to release MSCs
I
Ideal under 2cm²
Best results in small, contained lesions
C
CPM critical
Continuous passive motion for maturation
R
Rehabilitation protected
6-8 weeks non-weight-bearing
O
Outcome declines
Deterioration common after 2-5 years

Memory Hook:MICRO-fracture has MICRO results in MICRO lesions - small holes for small defects!

Mnemonic

HOLESHOLES - Surgical Technique

H
Healthy borders
Debride to stable cartilage shoulders
O
Offset 3-4mm
Spacing between holes preserves bone bridges
L
Leave calcified layer thin
Remove enough for bleeding, preserve structure
E
Enter perpendicular
Awl perpendicular to surface, 2-4mm deep
S
See fat droplets
Marrow elements confirm subchondral penetration

Memory Hook:Make HOLES properly - spacing and depth determine success!

Mnemonic

YOUNGIdeal Patient Selection

Y
Young (under 40)
Better healing potential and outcomes
O
One lesion (single)
Multiple lesions have worse prognosis
U
Under 2cm²
Small contained lesions do best
N
Normal alignment
Correct malalignment before/with procedure
G
Good subchondral bone
Preserved subchondral plate essential

Memory Hook:YOUNG patients do best - microfracture works in ideal candidates!

Overview and Epidemiology

Why This Topic Matters

Microfracture remains a first-line treatment for small cartilage lesions due to its simplicity, low cost, and single-stage nature. However, understanding its limitations is crucial for exam success - the fibrocartilage produced has inferior mechanical properties and outcomes deteriorate over time.

Common Indications

  • Full-thickness cartilage defect
  • Lesion under 2cm²
  • Intact subchondral bone
  • Contained lesion with stable shoulders
  • Failed conservative management

Contraindications

  • Lesion over 4cm²
  • Degenerative OA (diffuse disease)
  • Bipolar (kissing) lesions untreated
  • Uncorrected malalignment
  • Inflammatory arthropathy
  • Subchondral bone disease

Pathophysiology and Mechanisms

Fibrocartilage vs Hyaline Cartilage

The critical distinction: Microfracture produces fibrocartilage (Type I collagen) which is mechanically inferior to native hyaline cartilage (Type II collagen). Fibrocartilage has lower compressive stiffness, less water content, and poorer wear characteristics. This fundamental limitation explains the time-limited benefit.

Hyaline vs Fibrocartilage

PropertyHyaline CartilageFibrocartilage (Microfracture)
Collagen typeType IIType I (inferior)
Compressive stiffnessHighLower (50-80%)
Water content65-80%Lower
ProteoglycansHigh aggrecanLess organized
Wear resistanceExcellentInferior
DurabilityDecades2-5 years degradation

Why It Works

  • Subchondral penetration releases marrow elements
  • Mesenchymal stem cells populate the defect
  • Blood clot forms as scaffold for healing
  • CPM stimulates cartilage-like differentiation
  • Fibrocartilage fills the defect over 6-12 months

Why It Fails

  • Fibrocartilage is mechanically inferior
  • Subchondral changes develop over time
  • Cyclic loading degrades repair tissue
  • Large lesions cannot fill adequately
  • Type I collagen lacks resilience of Type II

Classification Systems

ICRS Cartilage Lesion Grading

GradeDescriptionDepthMicrofracture Suitability
Grade 0Normal cartilageIntactNo treatment needed
Grade 1Softening or superficial fissuresSuperficialConservative management
Grade 2Lesion depth under 50%Partial thicknessUsually conservative
Grade 3Lesion depth over 50%Near full-thicknessConsider microfracture
Grade 4Full-thickness with subchondral bone exposedFull-thicknessMicrofracture indicated

Microfracture for Grade 4

Microfracture is primarily indicated for ICRS Grade 4 lesions (full-thickness defects exposing subchondral bone). Grade 3 lesions may be suitable if symptomatic and unresponsive to conservative measures.

Lesion Size Classification for Treatment Selection

SizeClassificationFirst-Line TreatmentAlternative
Under 2cm²SmallMicrofractureOATS (single plug)
2-4cm²MediumOATS or ACIMicrofracture with caution
Over 4cm²LargeACI or AllograftAvoid microfracture

Clinical Assessment

History

  • Mechanism: Traumatic vs degenerative onset
  • Symptoms: Mechanical (catching, locking) vs pain
  • Duration: Acute vs chronic symptoms
  • Activity level: Sport demands and expectations
  • Previous treatment: Conservative measures tried

Examination

  • Effusion: Suggests synovitis/cartilage damage
  • Joint line tenderness: Over affected compartment
  • Range of motion: Usually preserved unless severe
  • Alignment: Varus/valgus assessment
  • Stability: Ligamentous integrity

Alignment Assessment is Critical

Malalignment is a major cause of microfracture failure. Always assess alignment clinically and radiographically. If significant varus (medial lesion) or valgus (lateral lesion), consider osteotomy before or with microfracture.

Investigations

Imaging Protocol

First LineX-rays

Weight-bearing AP, lateral, Rosenberg (45° PA), skyline. Assess joint space narrowing, alignment, and OA grade. Normal X-rays do not exclude cartilage damage.

Key InvestigationMRI

Cartilage-specific sequences essential. Assess lesion location, size, depth, containment. Evaluate subchondral bone for edema or cysts. Identify associated meniscal or ligamentous pathology.

If Malalignment SuspectedLong-leg Films

Full-length standing alignment films if clinical concern for malalignment. Calculate mechanical axis deviation.

MRI Findings

Look for: cartilage defect location and size, subchondral edema (may indicate ongoing damage), cyst formation (relative contraindication), bone marrow lesions, and associated meniscal/ligamentous pathology that needs addressing.

Management Algorithm

The 2cm² Rule

Under 2cm² is the magic number for microfracture. Outcomes are significantly better in lesions under this threshold. Over 4cm², microfracture should generally be avoided in favor of OATS, ACI, or allograft.

Factors Favoring Good Outcome

  • Lesion under 2cm²
  • Age under 40
  • Acute traumatic defect
  • Single lesion
  • Normal alignment
  • Compliant with rehab

Factors Predicting Failure

  • Lesion over 4cm²
  • Age over 40
  • Multiple lesions
  • Degenerative (vs traumatic)
  • Malalignment
  • Early weight-bearing
  • Subchondral bone disease

Evidence Base and Key Trials

Microfracture Long-Term Outcomes

4
Mithoefer K, McAdams T, Williams RJ, et al • AJSM (2009)
Key Findings:
  • Good short-term results (85% improvement at 2 years)
  • Deterioration of results after 2 years
  • Better outcomes in smaller lesions (under 2.5cm²)
  • Younger patients (under 40) had better outcomes
Clinical Implication: Microfracture provides time-limited benefit; outcomes deteriorate after 2 years. Best for small lesions in young patients.
Limitation: Systematic review of level 4 studies.

STAR Trial - Microfracture vs ACI

1
Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J, et al • AJSM (2014)
Key Findings:
  • No difference at 2 years between ACI and microfracture
  • At 5 years, ACI showed superiority over microfracture
  • Treatment failure higher with microfracture long-term
  • ACI maintained improvement, microfracture declined
Clinical Implication: ACI provides more durable results than microfracture for larger lesions. Microfracture may be acceptable short-term bridge.
Limitation: High dropout rate at 5 years.

Subchondral Bone Changes After Microfracture

4
Mithoefer K, Steadman JR, et al • AJSM (2005)
Key Findings:
  • Subchondral changes common after microfracture
  • Intralesional osteophytes in 25%
  • Subchondral cysts develop over time
  • Changes may compromise future procedures
Clinical Implication: Microfracture may compromise subchondral bone, making future OATS/ACI more difficult. Consider in young patients.
Limitation: Retrospective review.

AMIC vs Microfracture

3
Volz M, Schaumburger J, Frick H, et al • Cartilage (2017)
Key Findings:
  • AMIC showed better MRI fill than microfracture alone
  • Clinical outcomes similar at 2 years
  • AMIC may improve tissue quality
  • Single-stage procedure advantage maintained
Clinical Implication: AMIC may improve tissue fill without adding surgical stages. Consider for medium lesions (2-4cm²).
Limitation: Short follow-up, small sample.

Failed Microfracture and Subsequent Treatment

4
Minas T, Gomoll AH, Rosenberger R, et al • CORR (2009)
Key Findings:
  • Prior microfracture does not preclude subsequent ACI
  • Outcomes after failed microfracture are slightly worse
  • Subchondral bone damage may affect ACI integration
  • Bone grafting sometimes needed before ACI
Clinical Implication: ACI remains an option after failed microfracture, though outcomes may be slightly reduced. Plan accordingly.
Limitation: Retrospective single-center.

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Scenario 1: Small Cartilage Defect (~2-3 min)

EXAMINER

"A 28-year-old recreational footballer has a 1.5cm² full-thickness cartilage defect on the medial femoral condyle found incidentally during meniscectomy. How would you manage this?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This young patient with a small (1.5cm²) cartilage defect on the medial femoral condyle is an ideal candidate for microfracture. My rationale: The lesion is under 2cm² which is optimal for microfracture. He is young (under 40), which is associated with better healing. The defect is on a weight-bearing surface where intervention is warranted. At this surgery, I would: 1. Complete the planned meniscectomy first 2. Assess the lesion fully - confirm size, containment, stable shoulders 3. Check alignment - if normal, proceed with microfracture 4. Debride to stable vertical cartilage edges 5. Remove the calcified cartilage layer 6. Create microfracture holes 3-4mm apart, 2-4mm deep 7. Confirm marrow bleeding with pump off Post-operatively: Non-weight-bearing 6-8 weeks, CPM or aggressive ROM immediately. Return to sport 9-12 months. I would counsel him that microfracture produces fibrocartilage (Type I collagen) not native hyaline (Type II), and that results may deteriorate after 2-5 years. For this small lesion in a young patient, initial outcomes should be good.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Recognize ideal microfracture candidate (small lesion, young patient)
Know technical parameters (3-4mm spacing, 2-4mm depth)
Understand rehabilitation requirements (NWB 6-8 weeks)
Acknowledge fibrocartilage vs hyaline limitation
COMMON TRAPS
✗Suggesting complex procedure (ACI/OATS) for small lesion
✗Not knowing hole spacing and depth parameters
✗Forgetting to protect weight-bearing postoperatively
✗Not mentioning alignment assessment
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What if the lesion was 3cm²?"
"What if there was associated varus malalignment?"
"What is the collagen type in fibrocartilage?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 2: Failed Microfracture (~3-4 min)

EXAMINER

"A 35-year-old female presents 18 months after microfracture for a 2.5cm² medial femoral condyle lesion. She has recurrent pain and swelling. MRI shows incomplete fill with subchondral edema. How do you approach this?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a failed microfracture - not unexpected given the 2.5cm² size was at the upper end of optimal range. My assessment would focus on: 1. Symptoms: Confirming mechanical symptoms from cartilage, not other pathology 2. Alignment: Re-check for any malalignment that needs addressing 3. MRI: Assess subchondral bone status (cysts, edema, bone quality) 4. Associated pathology: Ensure no meniscal or ligamentous issues My treatment options for this failed microfracture: **First choice - ACI or MACI:** - Most appropriate for this 2.5cm² lesion - Two-stage procedure (harvest, then implant 6 weeks later) - Produces more hyaline-like cartilage (Type II collagen) - Prior microfracture does not preclude ACI, though outcomes may be slightly reduced **Alternative - OATS (if under 2-2.5cm²):** - Can cover with 2-3 plugs if lesion contained - Single stage - True hyaline cartilage transplanted - Donor site morbidity is a consideration I would need to assess the subchondral bone carefully - if there is significant bone loss or cystic change from the failed microfracture, I may need bone grafting before or during the definitive cartilage procedure. If there is any malalignment, I would address this with osteotomy either staged before or combined with the cartilage procedure.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Recognize failed microfracture and need for escalation
Know options after failed microfracture (ACI, OATS, allograft)
Assess subchondral bone status before planning
Address any contributing factors (alignment)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Repeating microfracture (unlikely to work)
✗Not considering subchondral bone changes from prior surgery
✗Ignoring alignment as contributing factor
✗Not knowing salvage options
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What is the difference between ACI and MACI?"
"How does prior microfracture affect ACI outcomes?"
"What if there was significant subchondral bone loss?"
VIVA SCENARIOCritical

Scenario 3: Large Lesion Discussion (~2-3 min)

EXAMINER

"A 42-year-old presents with a 5cm² cartilage defect on the lateral femoral condyle. The referring surgeon suggests microfracture. What are your thoughts?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
I would respectfully suggest that microfracture is not the optimal treatment for this lesion, and here's why: **Why microfracture is suboptimal:** 1. Size over 4cm² - microfracture outcomes are poor for large lesions 2. Age 42 - at the upper limit, healing potential reduced 3. Literature shows 50-60% good results at 2 years, declining to 20-30% by 5 years for large lesions **Better options for a 5cm² lesion:** **First choice - Osteochondral Allograft (OCA):** - Fresh allograft with live chondrocytes - Addresses large defects in single stage - True hyaline cartilage with mature matrix - Can address subchondral bone if needed - Best for large lesions **Alternative - ACI/MACI:** - Two-stage procedure - Can cover large lesions well - May produce hyaline-like cartilage - No donor site morbidity (vs OATS) **OATS mosaic** is possible but would require many plugs (5cm² = likely 5+ plugs), creating significant donor site morbidity. I would also assess alignment - if there is valgus malalignment contributing to lateral compartment overload, this must be addressed with a distal femoral osteotomy, either staged or combined. The key message is that while microfracture is technically simple, it is not appropriate for all cartilage lesions. Size matters - under 2cm² favors microfracture, over 4cm² should have alternatives.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Recognize contraindication (lesion over 4cm²)
Know alternative treatments for large lesions
Articulate why size affects microfracture outcomes
Consider alignment in lateral lesions
COMMON TRAPS
✗Agreeing to microfracture for large lesion
✗Not knowing size thresholds
✗Not having alternatives ready to discuss
✗Forgetting alignment assessment
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What is the difference between fresh and frozen allograft?"
"How would you consent this patient for allograft?"
"What if they insisted on microfracture?"

MCQ Practice Points

Collagen Type Question

Q: What type of collagen is produced after microfracture? A: Type I collagen - Microfracture produces fibrocartilage containing Type I collagen, not the Type II collagen found in native hyaline cartilage. This is mechanically inferior and contributes to long-term deterioration.

Hole Spacing Question

Q: What is the optimal spacing between microfracture holes? A: 3-4mm - Holes should be 3-4mm apart to preserve subchondral bone bridges. Closer spacing can cause subchondral collapse; wider spacing leaves inadequate marrow access.

Size Threshold Question

Q: What is the optimal lesion size for microfracture? A: Under 2cm² - Best outcomes occur in lesions under 2cm². Lesions 2-4cm² have acceptable but reduced outcomes. Lesions over 4cm² should be treated with alternatives (OATS, ACI, allograft).

Weight-Bearing Question

Q: How long should weight-bearing be restricted after microfracture? A: 6-8 weeks non-weight-bearing - Strict non-weight-bearing for 6-8 weeks is essential to protect the forming fibrocartilage. Premature loading is the most common cause of failure.

Outcome Deterioration Question

Q: When do microfracture results typically begin to deteriorate? A: 2-5 years - Short-term results are good (85% at 2 years) but deterioration occurs after 2-5 years in the majority of patients. This is due to the inferior mechanical properties of fibrocartilage.

CPM Rationale Question

Q: Why is CPM recommended after microfracture? A: CPM is thought to promote fibrocartilage differentiation toward a more hyaline-like phenotype. It also prevents adhesions and maintains ROM. The mechanical stimulus during early healing influences tissue quality.

Australian Context and Medicolegal Considerations

Australian Practice

  • Microfracture remains common first-line treatment
  • Increasing use of AMIC for medium lesions
  • Access to OCA limited in Australia (availability)
  • ACI/MACI available through specialized centers
  • PBS does not cover cartilage cell implantation

Documentation Standards

  • Document lesion size precisely at arthroscopy
  • Record alignment assessment
  • Document technical parameters (spacing, depth)
  • Record marrow bleeding confirmed
  • Consent for time-limited benefit

Medicolegal Considerations

Key documentation requirements:

  • Consent discussion must include: fibrocartilage vs hyaline limitation, time-limited benefit (2-5 years), possibility of deterioration and need for further surgery
  • Document lesion size at surgery - if over 4cm², document why microfracture chosen (if it was)
  • Record rehabilitation compliance in follow-up
  • If failure occurs, document was appropriate initial choice for lesion size

MICROFRACTURE TECHNIQUE

High-Yield Exam Summary

Definition

  • •Marrow stimulation technique for cartilage repair
  • •Penetrate subchondral plate to release MSCs
  • •Produces fibrocartilage (Type I collagen)
  • •First-line for small full-thickness defects

Key Numbers

  • •Under 2cm² = optimal lesion size
  • •3-4mm = hole spacing
  • •2-4mm = hole depth into subchondral bone
  • •6-8 weeks = non-weight-bearing
  • •85% = good results at 2 years
  • •2-5 years = typical time to deterioration

Ideal Patient (YOUNG)

  • •Young (under 40 years)
  • •One lesion (single)
  • •Under 2cm² lesion size
  • •Normal alignment
  • •Good subchondral bone

Technique (HOLES)

  • •Healthy borders (stable shoulders)
  • •Offset 3-4mm between holes
  • •Leave calcified layer thin (remove carefully)
  • •Enter perpendicular with awl
  • •See fat droplets (confirm bleeding)

Fibrocartilage Limitations

  • •Type I collagen (not Type II hyaline)
  • •Lower compressive stiffness (50-80%)
  • •Less water content than hyaline
  • •Poorer wear resistance
  • •Deteriorates over 2-5 years

When to Avoid Microfracture

  • •Lesion over 4cm²
  • •Age over 40 (relative)
  • •Diffuse OA (not focal)
  • •Uncorrected malalignment
  • •Bipolar lesions untreated
  • •Subchondral bone disease
Quick Stats
Complexityintermediate
Reading Time25 min
Updated2024-12-20
Related

Browse all procedures

View full catalog