Literature DB >> 28800919

Similar Outcomes After Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Intact and -Reconstructed Knees: A Comparative Matched-Group Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.

Dean Wang1, Claire D Eliasberg2, Tim Wang2, Ryan R Fader2, Francesca R Coxe2, Mollyann D Pais2, Riley J Williams2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare failure rates and clinical outcomes of osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-intact versus ACL-reconstructed knees at midterm follow-up.
METHODS: After a priori power analysis, a prospective registry of patients treated with OCA for focal chondral lesions ≥2 cm2 in size with minimum 2-year follow-up was used to match ACL-reconstructed knees with ACL-intact knees by age, sex, and primary chondral defect location. Exclusion criteria included meniscus transplantation, realignment osteotomy, or other ligamentous injury. Complications, reoperations, and patient responses to validated outcome measures were reviewed. Failure was defined by any procedure involving allograft removal/revision or conversion to arthroplasty. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression were performed to evaluate the association of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with failure.
RESULTS: A total of 50 ACL-intact and 25 ACL-reconstructed (18 prior, 7 concomitant) OCA patients were analyzed. The mean age was 36.2 years (range, 14-62 years). Mean follow-up was 3.9 years (range, 2-14 years). Patient demographics and chondral lesion characteristics were similar between groups. ACL-reconstructed patients averaged 2.2 ± 1.9 prior surgeries on the ipsilateral knee compared with 1.4 ± 1.4 surgeries for ACL-intact patients (P = .014). Grafts used for the last ACLR included bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft, hamstring autograft, Achilles tendon allograft, and tibialis allograft (data available for only 11 of 25 patients). At final follow-up, 22% of ACL-intact and 32% of ACL-reconstructed patients had undergone reoperation. OCA survivorship was 90% and 96% at 2 years and 79% and 85% at 5 years in ACL-intact and ACL-reconstructed patients, respectively (P = .774). ACLR was not independently associated with failure. Both groups demonstrated clinically significant improvements in the Short Form-36 pain and physical functioning, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective, and Knee Outcome Survey-Activities of Daily Living scores at final follow-up (P < .001), with no significant differences in preoperative, postoperative, and change scores between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: OCA in the setting of prior or concomitant ACLR does not portend higher failure rates or compromise clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28800919     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.06.034

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


  8 in total

1.  The Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Patients Undergoing Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation in the Knee.

Authors:  Takahiro Ogura; Jakob Ackermann; Alexandre Barbieri Mestriner; Gergo Merkely; Andreas H Gomoll
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2018-11-22       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Osteochondral Allografts for Large Osteochondral Lesions of the Knee Joint: Indications, Surgical Techniques and Results.

Authors:  E Carlos Rodriguez-Merchan; Carlos A Encinas-Ullan; Alexander D Liddle
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2022-03

3.  The cost-effectiveness of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee.

Authors:  Hema Mistry; Andrew Metcalfe; Nick Smith; Emma Loveman; Jill Colquitt; Pamela Royle; Norman Waugh
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Osteochondral Autograft Transfer Procedure: Arthroscopic Technique and Technical Pearls.

Authors:  Ryan Rowland; Michael Colello; Douglas J Wyland
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2019-06-11

5.  Differences in Clinical and Functional Outcomes Between Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation and Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation for the Treatment of Focal Articular Cartilage Defects.

Authors:  John R Matthews; Joseph M Brutico; Daniel T Abraham; Jeremy C Heard; Bradford S Tucker; Fotios P Tjoumakaris; Kevin B Freedman
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2022-02-09

6.  Arthroscopic Osteochondral Autograft Transfer System Procedure of the Lateral Femoral Condyle with Donor-Site Backfill Using Osteochondral Allograft Plug.

Authors:  Alvarho J Guzman; Therese Dela Rueda; Shane M Rayos Del Sol; Stewart A Bryant; Sarah Jenkins; Brandon Gardner; Patrick J McGahan; James L Chen
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2021-11-09

7.  Autologous chondrocyte implantation combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: similar short-term results in comparison with isolated cartilage repair in ligament intact joints.

Authors:  Julian Mehl; Matthias Feucht; Andrea Achtnich; Andreas B Imhoff; Philipp Niemeyer; Peter Angele; Wolfgang Zinser; Gunter Spahn; Ingo Loer; Heino Kniffler; Gunnar Schauf; Andreas Schmitt
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-10-09       Impact factor: 4.114

8.  Survivorship of Patellofemoral Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation.

Authors:  Eric J Cotter; David R Christian; Rachel M Frank; Eildar Abyar; Dillen Wischmeier; Adam B Yanke; Jack Farr; Brian J Cole
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2019-09-26
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.