BACKGROUND: Clinical cartilage restoration is evolving, with established and emerging technologies. Randomized, prospective studies with adequate power comparing the myriad of surgical techniques used to treat chondral injuries are still lacking and it remains a challenge for the surgeon treating patients to make evidence-based decisions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We reviewed the history of the major cartilage repair/restorative procedures, indications for currently available repair/restorative procedures, and postoperative management. METHODS: We performed searches using MEDLINE and cartilage-specific key words to identify all English-language literature. Articles were selected based on their contributions to our current understanding of the basic science and clinical treatment of articular cartilage lesions or historical importance. We then selected 77 articles, two of which are articles of historical importance. RESULTS: Current cartilage restorative techniques include débridement, microfracture, osteochondral fragment repair, osteochondral allograft, osteochondral autograft, and autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Pending techniques include two-staged cell-based therapies integrated into a variety of scaffolds, single-stage cell-based therapy, and augmentation of marrow stimulation, each with suggested indications including lesion size, location, and activity demands of the patient. The literature demonstrates variable improvements in pain and function contingent upon multiple variables including indications and application. CONCLUSIONS: For the patient with symptomatic chondral injury, numerous techniques are available to the surgeon to relieve pain and improve function. Until rigorous clinical trials (prospective, adequately powered, randomized control) are available, treatment decisions should be guided by expert extrapolation of the available literature based in historically sound principles.
BACKGROUND: Clinical cartilage restoration is evolving, with established and emerging technologies. Randomized, prospective studies with adequate power comparing the myriad of surgical techniques used to treat chondral injuries are still lacking and it remains a challenge for the surgeon treating patients to make evidence-based decisions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We reviewed the history of the major cartilage repair/restorative procedures, indications for currently available repair/restorative procedures, and postoperative management. METHODS: We performed searches using MEDLINE and cartilage-specific key words to identify all English-language literature. Articles were selected based on their contributions to our current understanding of the basic science and clinical treatment of articular cartilage lesions or historical importance. We then selected 77 articles, two of which are articles of historical importance. RESULTS: Current cartilage restorative techniques include débridement, microfracture, osteochondral fragment repair, osteochondral allograft, osteochondral autograft, and autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Pending techniques include two-staged cell-based therapies integrated into a variety of scaffolds, single-stage cell-based therapy, and augmentation of marrow stimulation, each with suggested indications including lesion size, location, and activity demands of the patient. The literature demonstrates variable improvements in pain and function contingent upon multiple variables including indications and application. CONCLUSIONS: For the patient with symptomatic chondral injury, numerous techniques are available to the surgeon to relieve pain and improve function. Until rigorous clinical trials (prospective, adequately powered, randomized control) are available, treatment decisions should be guided by expert extrapolation of the available literature based in historically sound principles.
Authors: Daniel B F Saris; Johan Vanlauwe; Jan Victor; Miroslav Haspl; Michael Bohnsack; Yves Fortems; Bruno Vandekerckhove; K Frederik Almqvist; Toon Claes; Frank Handelberg; Koen Lagae; Jan van der Bauwhede; Hilde Vandenneucker; K Gie Auw Yang; Mislav Jelic; Rene Verdonk; Nancy Veulemans; Johan Bellemans; Frank P Luyten Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: John-Paul H Rue; Adam B Yanke; Matthew L Busam; Allison G McNickle; Brian J Cole Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Gunnar Knutsen; Jon Olav Drogset; Lars Engebretsen; Torbjørn Grøntvedt; Vidar Isaksen; Tom C Ludvigsen; Sally Roberts; Eirik Solheim; Torbjørn Strand; Oddmund Johansen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Gregory Chang; Ding Xia; Orrin Sherman; Eric Strauss; Laith Jazrawi; Michael P Recht; Ravinder R Regatte Journal: MAGMA Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Yang Wu; Bugra Ayan; Kazim K Moncal; Youngnam Kang; Aman Dhawan; Srinivas V Koduru; Dino J Ravnic; Fadia Kamal; Ibrahim T Ozbolat Journal: Adv Healthc Mater Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 9.933
Authors: Ning Wang; Sibylle Grad; Martin J Stoddart; Philipp Niemeyer; Kilian Reising; Hagen Schmal; Norbert P Südkamp; Mauro Alini; Gian M Salzmann Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Ville V Meretoja; Rebecca L Dahlin; Sarah Wright; F Kurtis Kasper; Antonios G Mikos Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Hang Lin; Anthony Wai-Ming Cheng; Peter G Alexander; Angela M Beck; Rocky S Tuan Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.845