BACKGROUND: Experimental data indicate that perichondrial grafting to restore articular cartilage defects will result in repair with hyaline-like cartilage. In contrast. debridement and drilling results in repair with fibro-cartilage. In this retrospective study the long-term clinical results of both procedures were compared to evaluate the theoretical benefit of repair with hyaline-like tissue. METHODS: From two independent studies patients were selected with a cartilage defect in their knee. The selection was performed using strict inclusion criteria published elsewhere [Bouwmeester et al. Int. Orthop. 21 (1997) 313]. The patients were treated with either a perichondrium transplantation (PT group, n = 14) or with an 'open' debridement and drilling procedure (DD group, n = 11). The results of both procedures after 10-11 years were evaluated using the Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score (HSSS), X-ray examination, clinical examination and visual analogue scales (VAS) for pain during walking and at rest. RESULTS: Both procedures resulted in a general improvement compared to the situation before the operation. After an average of 10 years in the PT group there were three failures, in the DD group none, success rates were 78% and 100%, respectively. When comparing the successful PT patients with the DD patients, there were no differences in HSSS and VAS data. Both groups showed an equal number of irregular operation surface sites on X-ray (PT 9/11 versus DD 8/10). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that clinically at 10 years follow-up no difference was observed between debridement and drilling and perichondrium transplantation for treatment of an isolated cartilage defect. This raises questions about ongoing research to develop methods in order to improve the results of debridement and drilling as therapy for an isolated cartilage defect in a young patient (< or = 40 years).
BACKGROUND: Experimental data indicate that perichondrial grafting to restore articular cartilage defects will result in repair with hyaline-like cartilage. In contrast. debridement and drilling results in repair with fibro-cartilage. In this retrospective study the long-term clinical results of both procedures were compared to evaluate the theoretical benefit of repair with hyaline-like tissue. METHODS: From two independent studies patients were selected with a cartilage defect in their knee. The selection was performed using strict inclusion criteria published elsewhere [Bouwmeester et al. Int. Orthop. 21 (1997) 313]. The patients were treated with either a perichondrium transplantation (PT group, n = 14) or with an 'open' debridement and drilling procedure (DD group, n = 11). The results of both procedures after 10-11 years were evaluated using the Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score (HSSS), X-ray examination, clinical examination and visual analogue scales (VAS) for pain during walking and at rest. RESULTS: Both procedures resulted in a general improvement compared to the situation before the operation. After an average of 10 years in the PT group there were three failures, in the DD group none, success rates were 78% and 100%, respectively. When comparing the successful PT patients with the DD patients, there were no differences in HSSS and VAS data. Both groups showed an equal number of irregular operation surface sites on X-ray (PT 9/11 versus DD 8/10). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that clinically at 10 years follow-up no difference was observed between debridement and drilling and perichondrium transplantation for treatment of an isolated cartilage defect. This raises questions about ongoing research to develop methods in order to improve the results of debridement and drilling as therapy for an isolated cartilage defect in a young patient (< or = 40 years).
Authors: Reinoud W Brouwer; Maarten R Huizinga; Tijs Duivenvoorden; Tom M van Raaij; Arianne P Verhagen; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Jan A N Verhaar Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-12-13
Authors: Pieter J Emans; Lodewijk W van Rhijn; Tim J M Welting; Andy Cremers; Nina Wijnands; Frank Spaapen; J Willem Voncken; V Prasad Shastri Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Joern Steinhagen; Juergen Bruns; Georg Deuretzbacher; Wolfgang Ruether; Martin Fuerst; Oliver Niggemeyer Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2009-07-22 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Wouter J F M Jurgens; Robert Jan Kroeze; Behrouz Zandieh-Doulabi; Annemieke van Dijk; Greetje A P Renders; Theo H Smit; Florine J van Milligen; Marco J P F Ritt; Marco N Helder Journal: Biores Open Access Date: 2013-08
Authors: Gerjo J V M van Osch; Mats Brittberg; James E Dennis; Yvonne M Bastiaansen-Jenniskens; Reinhold G Erben; Yrjö T Konttinen; Frank P Luyten Journal: J Cell Mol Med Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 5.310