Artur Kroell1, Paul Marks2,3, Jaskarndip Chahal2,4,5, Mark Hurtig6, Tim Dwyer2,5,7, Daniel Whelan2,8, John Theodoropoulos9,10,11. 1. Orthopaedic Department, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. University of Toronto Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, 600 University Avenue, Suite 476C, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada. 3. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. 7. Mt Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 9. University of Toronto Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, 600 University Avenue, Suite 476C, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada. jtheodoropoulos@mtsinai.on.ca. 10. Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. jtheodoropoulos@mtsinai.on.ca. 11. Mt Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. jtheodoropoulos@mtsinai.on.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the variability of the microfracture technique when performed by experienced knee arthroscopy surgeons. METHOD: Four surgeons were each asked to perform microfracture on six preformed cartilage defects in fresh human cadaveric knees. Surgeons were instructed on penetration depth, inter-hole distance, and to place the holes perpendicular to the subchondral surface. Micro-computed tomography was used to calculate depth error, inter-hole distance error, and deviation of penetration angles from the perpendicular. RESULTS: All surgeons misjudged depth and inter-hole distance, tending to make microfracture holes too deep (depth error 1.1 mm ± 1.9) and too close together (inter-hole distance error: -0.8 mm ± 0.4). Fifty-one per cent of holes were angled more than 10° from the perpendicular (range 2.6°-19.8°). Both depth and distance errors were significantly lower in the trochlear groove than on the femoral condyle (p < 0.05). Surface shearing was associated with both penetration depth >4 mm and angles >20°. Inter-hole infraction occurred in holes closer than 2.5 mm to each other. CONCLUSION: Even experienced knee arthroscopy surgeons demonstrate inconsistency in surgical technique when performing microfracture. While further research will be required to demonstrate that these variations in surgical technique are associated with poorer clinical outcomes after microfracture, surgeons should attempt to minimizing such variations in order to prevent surface shearing and inter-hole infraction.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the variability of the microfracture technique when performed by experienced knee arthroscopy surgeons. METHOD: Four surgeons were each asked to perform microfracture on six preformed cartilage defects in fresh human cadaveric knees. Surgeons were instructed on penetration depth, inter-hole distance, and to place the holes perpendicular to the subchondral surface. Micro-computed tomography was used to calculate depth error, inter-hole distance error, and deviation of penetration angles from the perpendicular. RESULTS: All surgeons misjudged depth and inter-hole distance, tending to make microfracture holes too deep (depth error 1.1 mm ± 1.9) and too close together (inter-hole distance error: -0.8 mm ± 0.4). Fifty-one per cent of holes were angled more than 10° from the perpendicular (range 2.6°-19.8°). Both depth and distance errors were significantly lower in the trochlear groove than on the femoral condyle (p < 0.05). Surface shearing was associated with both penetration depth >4 mm and angles >20°. Inter-hole infraction occurred in holes closer than 2.5 mm to each other. CONCLUSION: Even experienced knee arthroscopy surgeons demonstrate inconsistency in surgical technique when performing microfracture. While further research will be required to demonstrate that these variations in surgical technique are associated with poorer clinical outcomes after microfracture, surgeons should attempt to minimizing such variations in order to prevent surface shearing and inter-hole infraction.
Authors: P C Kreuz; M R Steinwachs; C Erggelet; S J Krause; G Konrad; M Uhl; N Südkamp Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2006-07-11 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Kai Mithoefer; Riley J Williams; Russell F Warren; Hollis G Potter; Christopher R Spock; Edward C Jones; Thomas L Wickiewicz; Robert G Marx Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Peter C Kreuz; Christoph Erggelet; Matthias R Steinwachs; Stefanie J Krause; Andreas Lahm; Philipp Niemeyer; Nadir Ghanem; Markus Uhl; Norbert Südkamp Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: William D Stanish; Robert McCormack; Francisco Forriol; Nicholas Mohtadi; Stéphane Pelet; Jacques Desnoyers; Alberto Restrepo; Matthew S Shive Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Derrick M Knapik; Joshua D Harris; Garett Pangrazzi; Michael J Griesser; Robert A Siston; Sudha Agarwal; David C Flanigan Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2013-07-26 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Kai Mithoefer; Timothy McAdams; Riley J Williams; Peter C Kreuz; Bert R Mandelbaum Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-02-26 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: H M Zlotnick; R C Locke; B D Stoeckl; J M Patel; S Gupta; K D Browne; J Koh; J L Carey; R L Mauck Journal: Eur Cell Mater Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 3.942