Nicolas Martinez-Carranza1,2, Kjell Hultenby3, Anne Sofie Lagerstedt4, Peter Schupbach5, Hans E Berg1,2. 1. 1 Department of Orthopaedics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. 2 Institution of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. 3 Division of Clinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. 4 Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden. 5. 5 Schupbach Ltd, Service and Research Laboratory for Histology, Electron Microscopy and Micro CT, Horgen, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Full-depth cartilage lesions do not heal and the long-term clinical outcome is uncertain. In the symptomatic middle-aged (35-60 years) patient, treatment with metal implants has been proposed. However, the cartilage health surrounding these implants has not been thoroughly studied. Our objective was to evaluate the health of cartilage opposing and adjacent to metal resurfacing implants. METHODS: The medial femoral condyle was operated in 9 sheep bilaterally. A metallic resurfacing metallic implant was immediately inserted into an artificially created 7.5 mm defect while on the contralateral knee the defect was left untreated. Euthanasia was performed at 6 months. Six animals, of similar age and study duration, from a previous study were used for comparison in the evaluation of cartilage health adjacent to the implant. Cartilage damage to joint surfaces within the knee, cartilage repair of the defect, and cartilage adjacent to the implant was evaluated macroscopically and microscopically. RESULTS: Six animals available for evaluation of cartilage health within the knee showed a varying degree of cartilage damage with no statistical difference between defects treated with implants or left untreated ( P = 0.51; 95% CI -3.7 to 6.5). The cartilage adjacent to the implant (score 0-14; where 14 indicates no damage) remained healthy in these 6 animals showing promising results (averaged 10.5; range 9-11.5, SD 0.95). Cartilage defects did not heal in any case. CONCLUSION: Treatment of a critical size focal lesion with a metal implant is a viable alternative treatment.
BACKGROUND: Full-depth cartilage lesions do not heal and the long-term clinical outcome is uncertain. In the symptomatic middle-aged (35-60 years) patient, treatment with metal implants has been proposed. However, the cartilage health surrounding these implants has not been thoroughly studied. Our objective was to evaluate the health of cartilage opposing and adjacent to metal resurfacing implants. METHODS: The medial femoral condyle was operated in 9 sheep bilaterally. A metallic resurfacing metallic implant was immediately inserted into an artificially created 7.5 mm defect while on the contralateral knee the defect was left untreated. Euthanasia was performed at 6 months. Six animals, of similar age and study duration, from a previous study were used for comparison in the evaluation of cartilage health adjacent to the implant. Cartilage damage to joint surfaces within the knee, cartilage repair of the defect, and cartilage adjacent to the implant was evaluated macroscopically and microscopically. RESULTS: Six animals available for evaluation of cartilage health within the knee showed a varying degree of cartilage damage with no statistical difference between defects treated with implants or left untreated ( P = 0.51; 95% CI -3.7 to 6.5). The cartilage adjacent to the implant (score 0-14; where 14 indicates no damage) remained healthy in these 6 animals showing promising results (averaged 10.5; range 9-11.5, SD 0.95). Cartilage defects did not heal in any case. CONCLUSION: Treatment of a critical size focal lesion with a metal implant is a viable alternative treatment.
Authors: N Martinez-Carranza; H E Berg; K Hultenby; H Nurmi-Sandh; L Ryd; A-S Lagerstedt Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: J Richard Steadman; Karen K Briggs; Juan J Rodrigo; Mininder S Kocher; Thomas J Gill; William G Rodkey Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: László Hangody; Gábor Vásárhelyi; László Rudolf Hangody; Zita Sükösd; György Tibay; Lajos Bartha; Gábor Bodó Journal: Injury Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: R J H Custers; D B F Saris; W J A Dhert; A J Verbout; M H P van Rijen; S C Mastbergen; F P J G Lafeber; L B Creemers Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.284
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