Literature DB >> 27317013

Long-term Outcomes After Osteochondral Allograft: A Systematic Review at Long-term Follow-up of 12.3 Years.

Andrew T Assenmacher1, Ayoosh Pareek1, Patrick J Reardon1, Jeffrey A Macalena2, Michael J Stuart1, Aaron J Krych3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To (1) evaluate long-term outcomes of osteochondral allograft (OCA) with regard to clinical outcome scores, reoperation and failure rates, and (2) examine if certain factors predispose patients to worse outcomes.
METHODS: A comprehensive review was performed with specific inclusion criteria for studies with long-term outcomes after OCA. Studies reported on patient clinical scores such as Hospital for Special Surgery score, Knee Society Score (knee and function score), and Lysholm score. Reoperation and failure rates were recorded for each study. Modified Coleman Methodology Scores assessed study methodological quality.
RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 291 patients (55% male, 45% female) and average age of 34.8 years (range, 15 to 69 years) were included. Of all lesions, 67% were on the femoral condyles, 29% on the tibial plateau, and 4% were patellofemoral. All scores (Knee Society Function Score, Knee Society Knee Score, and Lysholm score) have significant mean improvement from preoperative to final follow-up. The mean postoperative Hospital for Special Surgery score was 84.1. The mean failure rate was 25% at 12.3 years with a reoperation rate of 36%. A total of 72% of the failures were conversion to total (68%) or unicompartmental (4%) knee arthroplasty and 28% involved graft removal, graft fixation, and graft revision. Patellofemoral lesions (83%) had a significantly higher reoperation rate than lesions involving the tibial plateau or the femoral condyles (34%, P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, OCA demonstrated significant improvements in clinical outcome scores and good durability with successful outcomes in 75% of the patients at 12.3 years after surgery. Patellofemoral lesions are associated with decreased clinical improvement and more frequent reoperations. The orthopaedic literature is limited by heterogeneity in surgical technique, lesion and patient characteristics, and reporting of nonstandardized outcome measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II and IV studies.
Copyright © 2016 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27317013     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.04.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  38 in total

1.  Assessment of Cell Viability of Fresh Osteochondral Allografts in N-Acetylcysteine-Enriched Medium.

Authors:  Rafael Calvo; Maximiliano Espinosa; David Figueroa; Luz María Pozo; Paulette Conget
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Treatment of unstable knee osteochondritis dissecans in the young adult: results and limitations of surgical strategies-The advantages of allografts to address an osteochondral challenge.

Authors:  Giuseppe Filardo; Luca Andriolo; Francesc Soler; Massimo Berruto; Paolo Ferrua; Peter Verdonk; Frederic Rongieras; Dennis C Crawford
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Management of Posttraumatic Ankle Arthritis: Literature Review.

Authors:  Samuel O Ewalefo; Malcolm Dombrowski; Takashi Hirase; Jorge L Rocha; Mitchell Weaver; Alex Kline; Dwayne Carney; MaCalus V Hogan
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-12

Review 4.  Understanding Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Knee Cartilage Repair: A Focus on Clinical Relevance.

Authors:  Daichi Hayashi; Xinning Li; Akira M Murakami; Frank W Roemer; Siegfried Trattnig; Ali Guermazi
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Bipolar Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation of the Patella and Trochlea.

Authors:  Raffy Mirzayan; Michael D Charles; Michael Batech; Brian D Suh; David DeWitt
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2018-09-03       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Two-stage bone and meniscus allograft and autologous chondrocytes implant for unicompartmental osteoarthritis: midterm results.

Authors:  E Álvarez-Lozano; D Luna-Pizarro; G Meraz-Lares; R Quintanilla-Loredo; M V Cerdá-García; F Forriol
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2020-08-26

7.  Long-Term Retrospective Follow-Up of Fresh Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation for Steroid-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Condyles.

Authors:  Samuel Early; Luís E P Tírico; Pamela A Pulido; Julie C McCauley; William D Bugbee
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Concomitant Osteotomy Reduces Risk of Reoperation Following Cartilage Restoration Procedures of the Knee: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

Authors:  Jacob G Calcei; Kunal Varshneya; Kyle R Sochacki; Marc R Safran; Geoffrey D Abrams; Seth L Sherman
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2021-05-08       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  No Difference in Outcomes Following Osteochondral Allograft with Fresh Precut Cores Compared to Hemi-Condylar Allografts.

Authors:  Danielle H Markus; Anna M Blaeser; Eoghan T Hurley; Brian J Mannino; Kirk A Campbell; Laith M Jazrawi; Michael J Alaia; Eric J Strauss; Erin F Alaia
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 3.117

10.  Metrics of OsteoChondral Allografts (MOCA) Group Consensus Statements on the Use of Viable Osteochondral Allograft.

Authors:  Simon Görtz; Suzanne M Tabbaa; Deryk G Jones; John D Polousky; Dennis C Crawford; William D Bugbee; Brian J Cole; Jack Farr; James E Fleischli; Alan Getgood; Andreas H Gomoll; Allan E Gross; Aaron J Krych; Christian Lattermann; Bert R Mandelbaum; Peter R Mandt; Raffy Mirzayan; Timothy S Mologne; Matthew T Provencher; Scott A Rodeo; Oleg Safir; Eric D Strauss; Christopher J Wahl; Riley J Williams; Adam B Yanke
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-03-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.