Gunter Spahn1, Gunther O Hofmann2, Lars Victor von Engelhardt3. 1. Center of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery and Jena University Hospital, Sophienstr. 16, 99817, Eisenach, Germany. spahn@pk-eisenach.de. 2. Trauma Department and Trauma Center Bergmannstrost Halle/S., Jena University Hospital, Erlanger Allee 101, 07740, Jena, Germany. 3. Department of Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke and Johanna-Etienne-Hospital, Am Hasenberg 46, 41462, Neuss, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared the effectiveness of mechanical debridement (MD) and bipolar radiofrequency chondroplasty (RF) with regard to clinical outcome, rate of revision, and progression of knee osteoarthritis. METHODS:Sixty patients with MRI-detected grade III cartilage lesions on the medial femoral condyle were considered for the study. For MD (group 1; n = 30), each lesion was debrided using a mechanical shaver. For RF (group 2; n = 30), each lesion was smoothed using a temperature-controlled RF probe set at 50 °C. RESULTS: The 10-year follow-up was available for 47 patients (78.3 %). Sixty per cent of group 1 (n = 18) underwent revision during the follow-up period. In contrast, the revision rate in group 2 was 23.3 % (n = 7; p = 0.061). The mean survival was 94.1 months (95 % CI 77.1-111.3) and 62.5 months (95 % CI 45.9-79.2) for group 2 and group 1, respectively. Patients who did not require revision (group 1, n = 9; group 2, n = 13) were assessed before surgery and 1, 4, and 10 years after surgery using the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). At follow-up, the KOOS was higher for group 2 than group 1. At the time of surgery, no patient showed any radiological signs of osteoarthritis. The width of the medial joint was 5.4 mm (95 % CI 4.3-6.5) and 5.6 mm (95 % CI 4.9-6.3) in the MD and RF groups, respectively (n.s.). During the follow-up period, the joint space width narrowed continuously in both groups (p < 0.001), but more rapidly in the group 1 (n.s). CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional MD, 50° RF treatment appears to be a superior method based on short- and medium-term clinical outcomes and the progression of knee osteoarthritis. Clear predictors for the indications of different cartilage treatments and more randomized clinical trials are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We compared the effectiveness of mechanical debridement (MD) and bipolar radiofrequency chondroplasty (RF) with regard to clinical outcome, rate of revision, and progression of knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Sixty patients with MRI-detected grade III cartilage lesions on the medial femoral condyle were considered for the study. For MD (group 1; n = 30), each lesion was debrided using a mechanical shaver. For RF (group 2; n = 30), each lesion was smoothed using a temperature-controlled RF probe set at 50 °C. RESULTS: The 10-year follow-up was available for 47 patients (78.3 %). Sixty per cent of group 1 (n = 18) underwent revision during the follow-up period. In contrast, the revision rate in group 2 was 23.3 % (n = 7; p = 0.061). The mean survival was 94.1 months (95 % CI 77.1-111.3) and 62.5 months (95 % CI 45.9-79.2) for group 2 and group 1, respectively. Patients who did not require revision (group 1, n = 9; group 2, n = 13) were assessed before surgery and 1, 4, and 10 years after surgery using the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). At follow-up, the KOOS was higher for group 2 than group 1. At the time of surgery, no patient showed any radiological signs of osteoarthritis. The width of the medial joint was 5.4 mm (95 % CI 4.3-6.5) and 5.6 mm (95 % CI 4.9-6.3) in the MD and RF groups, respectively (n.s.). During the follow-up period, the joint space width narrowed continuously in both groups (p < 0.001), but more rapidly in the group 1 (n.s). CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional MD, 50° RF treatment appears to be a superior method based on short- and medium-term clinical outcomes and the progression of knee osteoarthritis. Clear predictors for the indications of different cartilage treatments and more randomized clinical trials are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
Authors: Y Lu; K Hayashi; P Hecht; G S Fanton; G Thabit; A J Cooley; R B Edwards; M D Markel Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2000 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.772
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: Ilya Voloshin; Kenneth R Morse; C Dain Allred; Scott A Bissell; Michael D Maloney; Kenneth E DeHaven Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Jonathan S Palmer; A Paul Monk; Sally Hopewell; Lee E Bayliss; William Jackson; David J Beard; Andrew J Price Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-07-19
Authors: Bryan Michael Saltzman; Michael L Redondo; Adam Beer; Eric J Cotter; Rachel M Frank; Adam B Yanke; Brian J Cole Journal: Cartilage Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Robert L Parisien; Michael Constant; Bryan M Saltzman; Charles A Popkin; Christopher S Ahmad; Xinning Li; David P Trofa Journal: Cartilage Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 3.117