Literature DB >> 27663035

A Comparison of the Outcomes for Cartilage Defects of the Knee Treated With Biologic Resurfacing Versus Focal Metallic Implants.

Cecilia Pascual-Garrido1, Erika Daley2, Nikhil N Verma2, Brian J Cole3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the results of focal metallic resurfacing with biologic procedures in patients more than 35 years of age with isolated, full thickness defects of the femoral condyle.
METHODS: A total of 61 patients met the selection criteria resulting in 30 patients treated with biological procedures, including debridement, microfracture, osteochondral autograft transplantation, osteochondral allograft, and autologous chondrocyte implantation (BIO group), and 32 patients treated with focal metallic resurfacing (CAP group). The BIO and CAP groups were matched according to treatment location, defect grade and size, and age profile. Outcomes included Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Short Form-12, and satisfaction. The primary combination endpoint was determined as a 20% improvement (minimum clinically important difference-20) on WOMAC pain and function at 2 years and no additional index lesion-related surgical intervention. Safety and effectiveness were also reported.
RESULTS: Thirty patients in the BIO group (mean age of 44.6, range 35-64) had an average follow-up of 2.6 years and 32 patients in the CAP group (mean age 47.9, range 37-68) were followed for 2.0 years. Fifty-three percent in the BIO group and 75% in the CAP group achieved success per the endpoint definition. The mean total WOMAC score improved significantly for both groups (BIO: 57-78; P < .001) (CAP: 41-86; P < .001). The physical component score (Short Form-12 PCS) improved significantly in the CAP group only (30-36.4; P < .001). Good to excellent patient satisfaction was achieved by 80% in BIO and 91% in CAP. There were 4 secondary procedures on the index lesion in the BIO group and 2 in the CAP group.
CONCLUSIONS: Careful patient selection can achieve high satisfaction rates with both biological and focal metal resurfacing procedures for the treatment of isolated focal chondral lesions of the femoral condyle in the knee. Focal metallic resurfacing results in similar clinical outcomes and provides excellent success rates at short-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III comparative study.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27663035     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.07.010

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  [Focal femoral resurfacing and unicompartmental knee replacement : Between osteotomy and total knee replacement].

Authors:  Philipp Henle; Matthias J Feucht; Christian Stärke
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Focal metallic inlay resurfacing prosthesis for the treatment of localized cartilage defects of the femoral condyles: a systematic review of clinical studies.

Authors:  Andreas Fuchs; Helge Eberbach; Kaywan Izadpanah; Gerrit Bode; Norbert P Südkamp; Matthias J Feucht
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-09-16       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Targeted treatment for osteoarthritis: drugs and delivery system.

Authors:  Liwei Mao; Wei Wu; Miao Wang; Jianmin Guo; Hui Li; Shihua Zhang; Jiake Xu; Jun Zou
Journal:  Drug Deliv       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 6.819

4.  Accurate Reporting of Concomitant Procedures Is Highly Variable in Studies Investigating Knee Cartilage Restoration.

Authors:  William L Sheppard; Betina B Hinckel; Armin Arshi; Seth L Sherman; Kristofer J Jones
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2019-04-11       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  The clinical outcome of the different HemiCAP and UniCAP knee implants: A systematic and comprehensive review.

Authors:  Michael-Alexander Malahias; Dimitrios Chytas; Fritz Thorey
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2018-06-14

6.  A large knee osteochondral lesion treated using a combination of osteochondral autograft transfer and second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation: A case report.

Authors:  Yuki Kato; Joverienne Chavez; Shin Yamada; Soichi Hattori; Shuzo Takazawa; Hiroshi Ohuchi
Journal:  Regen Ther       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 3.419

7.  Ultrasound-Based Quantification of Cartilage Damage After In Vivo Articulation With Metal Implants.

Authors:  Maria Pastrama; Janne Spierings; Pieter van Hugten; Keita Ito; Richard Lopata; Corrinus C van Donkelaar
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2021-12-11       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 8.  A Systematic Review of Focal Cartilage Defect Treatments in Middle-Aged Versus Younger Patients.

Authors:  Ralph M Jeuken; Pieter P W van Hugten; Alex K Roth; Ufuk Tan Timur; Tim A E J Boymans; Lodewijk W van Rhijn; William D Bugbee; Pieter J Emans
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-10-15

9.  [Effectiveness of arthroscopic microfracture combined with osteochondral autologous transplantation for large area cartilage injury of femoral condyle of knee].

Authors:  Meng Song; Zheng Zhang; Lixiang Yan; Danping Liu
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-03-15

10.  Patient-specific metal implants for focal chondral and osteochondral lesions in the knee; excellent clinical results at 2 years.

Authors:  Johannes Holz; Tim Spalding; Tarek Boutefnouchet; Pieter Emans; Karl Eriksson; Mats Brittberg; Lars Konradsen; Clemens Kösters; Peter Verdonk; Magnus Högström; Martin Lind
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 4.114

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.