PURPOSE: Third generation autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an established treatment for full thickness cartilage defects in the knee joint. However, little is known about cases when revision surgery is needed. The aim of the present study is to investigate the complication rates and the main reasons for revision surgery after third generation autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee joint. It is of particular interest to examine in which cases revision surgery is needed and in which cases a "wait and see" strategy should be used. METHODS: A total of 143 consecutive patients with 171 cartilage defects were included in this study with a minimum follow-up of two years. All defects were treated with third generation ACI (NOVACART®3D). Clinical evaluation was carried out after six months, followed by an annual evaluation using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for rest and during activity. Revision surgery was documented. RESULTS: The revision rate was 23.4 % (n = 36). The following major reasons for revision surgery were found in our study: symptomatic bone marrow edema (8.3 %, n = 3), arthrofibrosis (22.2 %, n = 8) and partial graft cartilage deficiency (47.2 %, n = 17). The following revision surgery was performed: retrograde drilling combined with Iloprost infusion therapy for bone marrow oedema (8.4 %, n = 3), arthroscopic arthrolysis of the suprapatellar recess (22.2 %, n = 8) and microfracturing/antegrade drilling (47.3 %, n = 17). Significant improvements of clinical scores after revision surgery were observed. CONCLUSION: Revision surgery after third generation autologous chondrocyte implantation is common and is needed primarily in cases with arthrofibrosis, partial graft cartilage deficiency and symptomatic bone marrow oedema resulting in a significantly better clinical outcome.
PURPOSE: Third generation autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an established treatment for full thickness cartilage defects in the knee joint. However, little is known about cases when revision surgery is needed. The aim of the present study is to investigate the complication rates and the main reasons for revision surgery after third generation autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee joint. It is of particular interest to examine in which cases revision surgery is needed and in which cases a "wait and see" strategy should be used. METHODS: A total of 143 consecutive patients with 171 cartilage defects were included in this study with a minimum follow-up of two years. All defects were treated with third generation ACI (NOVACART®3D). Clinical evaluation was carried out after six months, followed by an annual evaluation using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for rest and during activity. Revision surgery was documented. RESULTS: The revision rate was 23.4 % (n = 36). The following major reasons for revision surgery were found in our study: symptomatic bone marrow edema (8.3 %, n = 3), arthrofibrosis (22.2 %, n = 8) and partial graft cartilage deficiency (47.2 %, n = 17). The following revision surgery was performed: retrograde drilling combined with Iloprost infusion therapy for bone marrow oedema (8.4 %, n = 3), arthroscopic arthrolysis of the suprapatellar recess (22.2 %, n = 8) and microfracturing/antegrade drilling (47.3 %, n = 17). Significant improvements of clinical scores after revision surgery were observed. CONCLUSION: Revision surgery after third generation autologous chondrocyte implantation is common and is needed primarily in cases with arthrofibrosis, partial graft cartilage deficiency and symptomatic bone marrow oedema resulting in a significantly better clinical outcome.
Authors: Jan M Pestka; Gerrit Bode; Gian Salzmann; Mathias Steinwachs; Hagen Schmal; Norbert P Südkamp; Philipp Niemeyer Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Pia M Jungmann; Gian M Salzmann; Hagen Schmal; Jan M Pestka; Norbert P Südkamp; Philipp Niemeyer Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Lukas Zak; Christian Albrecht; Barbara Wondrasch; Harald Widhalm; György Vekszler; Siegfried Trattnig; Stefan Marlovits; Silke Aldrian Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: P Niemeyer; S Andereya; P Angele; A Ateschrang; M Aurich; M Baumann; P Behrens; U Bosch; C Erggelet; S Fickert; J Fritz; H Gebhard; K Gelse; D Günther; A Hoburg; P Kasten; T Kolombe; H Madry; S Marlovits; N M Meenen; P E Müller; U Nöth; J P Petersen; M Pietschmann; W Richter; B Rolauffs; K Rhunau; B Schewe; A Steinert; M R Steinwachs; G H Welsch; W Zinser; D Albrecht Journal: Z Orthop Unfall Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 0.923
Authors: Peter C Kreuz; Sebastian Müller; Arvind von Keudell; Thomas Tischer; Christian Kaps; Philipp Niemeyer; Christoph Erggelet Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Philipp Niemeyer; Gian Salzmann; Matthias Feucht; Jan Pestka; Stella Porichis; Peter Ogon; Norbert Südkamp; Hagen Schmal Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Peter Ernst Müller; David Gallik; Florian Hammerschmid; Andrea Baur-Melnyk; Matthias Frank Pietschmann; Anja Zhang; Thomas Richard Niethammer Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Thomas Richard Niethammer; Martin Holzgruber; Mehmet Fatih Gülecyüz; Patrick Weber; Matthias Frank Pietschmann; Peter Ernst Müller Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Donato Rosa; Sigismondo Luca Di Donato; Giovanni Balato; Alessio D'Addona; Francesco Smeraglia; Gaetano Correra; Gianni Di Vico Journal: Joints Date: 2017-07-28
Authors: Andrea Preitschopf; David Schörghofer; Katharina Kinslechner; Birgit Schütz; Hannes Zwickl; Margit Rosner; József Gabor Joó; Stefan Nehrer; Markus Hengstschläger; Mario Mikula Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 6.940