Martin Brix1, Martin Kaipel2, Richard Kellner3, Markus Schreiner1, Sebastian Apprich4, Harald Boszotta3, Reinhard Windhager4, Stephan Domayer1, Siegfried Trattnig1. 1. Centre of Excellence "High-field Magnetic Resonance (MR)", Medical University Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Barmherzige Brüder Hospital, Johannes von Gott-Platz 1, A-7000, Eisenstadt, Austria. martin.kaipel@ortho-sued.at. 3. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Barmherzige Brüder Hospital, Johannes von Gott-Platz 1, A-7000, Eisenstadt, Austria. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Medical University Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The treatment of larger osteochondral lesions in the knee is still a clinical challenge. One promising strategy to overcome this problem could be surgical repair by using a cell-free multilayered nano-composite scaffold. METHOD: In this prospective cohort study eight consecutive patients which suffered from a single osteochondral lesion (≥1.5 cm(2)) on the femoral condyle were enrolled. The repair potential of the implant was assessed by using MRI based biochemical MR sequences (T2 mapping) as well as semi-quantitative morphological analyses (MOCART score) at 18 months after the surgery. The clinical outcome was determined at six, 12, 18, and 24 month follow ups by using IKDC, Tegner-Lysholm, and Cincinnati knee scores. RESULTS: Seven out of eight patients showed a complete integration of the scaffold into the border zone and five out of eight patients excellent or good subchondral ossification of the implant at 18 months following implantation. The surface of the repair tissue was found to be intact in all eight patients. T2 mapping data and the zonal T2 index significantly differed in the repair tissue compared to the healthy control cartilage (P < 0.001) which indicates a limited quality of the repair cartilage. The clinical outcome scores consistently improved during the follow up period without reaching statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Osteochondral repair by implanting the MaioRegen® scaffold provides a successful osteoconduction and filling of the cartilage defect. However there is evidence for a limited repair cartilage tissue quality at 18 months after the surgery.
INTRODUCTION: The treatment of larger osteochondral lesions in the knee is still a clinical challenge. One promising strategy to overcome this problem could be surgical repair by using a cell-free multilayered nano-composite scaffold. METHOD: In this prospective cohort study eight consecutive patients which suffered from a single osteochondral lesion (≥1.5 cm(2)) on the femoral condyle were enrolled. The repair potential of the implant was assessed by using MRI based biochemical MR sequences (T2 mapping) as well as semi-quantitative morphological analyses (MOCART score) at 18 months after the surgery. The clinical outcome was determined at six, 12, 18, and 24 month follow ups by using IKDC, Tegner-Lysholm, and Cincinnati knee scores. RESULTS: Seven out of eight patients showed a complete integration of the scaffold into the border zone and five out of eight patients excellent or good subchondral ossification of the implant at 18 months following implantation. The surface of the repair tissue was found to be intact in all eight patients. T2 mapping data and the zonal T2 index significantly differed in the repair tissue compared to the healthy control cartilage (P < 0.001) which indicates a limited quality of the repair cartilage. The clinical outcome scores consistently improved during the follow up period without reaching statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Osteochondral repair by implanting the MaioRegen® scaffold provides a successful osteoconduction and filling of the cartilage defect. However there is evidence for a limited repair cartilage tissue quality at 18 months after the surgery.
Authors: Jaskarndip Chahal; Allan E Gross; Christopher Gross; Nathan Mall; Tim Dwyer; Amanjot Chahal; Daniel B Whelan; Brian J Cole Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Frank McCormick; Joshua D Harris; Geoffrey D Abrams; Rachel Frank; Anil Gupta; Kristen Hussey; Hillary Wilson; Bernard Bach; Brian Cole Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Massimo Berruto; Marco Delcogliano; Francesca de Caro; Giulia Carimati; Francesco Uboldi; Paolo Ferrua; Giovanni Ziveri; Carlo Felice De Biase Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Goetz H Welsch; Tallal C Mamisch; Stephan E Domayer; Ronald Dorotka; Florian Kutscha-Lissberg; Stefan Marlovits; Lawrence M White; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Kon; A Muttini; E Arcangeli; M Delcogliano; G Filardo; N Nicoli Aldini; D Pressato; R Quarto; S Zaffagnini; M Marcacci Journal: J Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.963
Authors: E Kon; M Delcogliano; G Filardo; D Pressato; M Busacca; B Grigolo; G Desando; M Marcacci Journal: Injury Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Dominic T Mathis; Raphael Kaelin; Helmut Rasch; Markus P Arnold; Michael T Hirschmann Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Alfred Hochrein; Wolfgang Zinser; Gunter Spahn; Peter Angele; Ingo Löer; Dirk Albrecht; Philipp Niemeyer Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Elizaveta Kon; Giuseppe Filardo; Mats Brittberg; Maurizio Busacca; Vincenzo Condello; Lars Engebretsen; Stefan Marlovits; Philipp Niemeyer; Patrik Platzer; Michael Posthumus; Peter Verdonk; Renè Verdonk; Jan Victor; Willem van der Merwe; Wojciech Widuchowski; Claudio Zorzi; Maurilio Marcacci Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: J V Korpershoek; L A Vonk; E C Kester; L B Creemers; T S de Windt; M M A Kip; D B F Saris; R J H Custers Journal: Trials Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 2.279