Naoki Nakano1, Chetan Gohal2, Andrew Duong2, Olufemi R Ayeni2, Vikas Khanduja3. 1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Box 37, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. 3. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Box 37, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. vk279@cam.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/ PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the options of treatment and their related outcomes for chondral injuries in the hip based on the available evidence whilst highlighting new and innovative techniques. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Google Scholar, British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) was undertaken from their inception to March 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical outcome studies, prospective/retrospective case series and case reports that described the outcome of cartilage repair technique for the chondral injury in the hip were included. Studies on total hip replacement, animal studies, basic studies, trial protocols and review articles were excluded. RESULTS: The systematic review found 21 relevant papers with 596 hips. Over 80% of the included studies were published in or after 2010. Most studies were case series or case reports (18 studies, 85.7%). Arthroscopy was used in 11 studies (52.4%). The minimum follow-up period was six months. Mean age of the participants was 37.2 years; 93.5% of patients had cartilage injuries of the acetabulum and 6.5% of them had injuries of the femoral head. Amongst the 11 techniques described in the systematic review, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, osteochondral autograft transplantation and microfracture were the three frequently reported techniques. CONCLUSION: Over ten different techniques are available for cartilage repair in the hip, and most of them have good short- to medium-term outcomes. However, there are no robust comparative studies to assess superiority of one technique over another, and further research is required in this arena.
OBJECTIVE/ PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the options of treatment and their related outcomes for chondral injuries in the hip based on the available evidence whilst highlighting new and innovative techniques. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Google Scholar, British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) was undertaken from their inception to March 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical outcome studies, prospective/retrospective case series and case reports that described the outcome of cartilage repair technique for the chondral injury in the hip were included. Studies on total hip replacement, animal studies, basic studies, trial protocols and review articles were excluded. RESULTS: The systematic review found 21 relevant papers with 596 hips. Over 80% of the included studies were published in or after 2010. Most studies were case series or case reports (18 studies, 85.7%). Arthroscopy was used in 11 studies (52.4%). The minimum follow-up period was six months. Mean age of the participants was 37.2 years; 93.5% of patients had cartilage injuries of the acetabulum and 6.5% of them had injuries of the femoral head. Amongst the 11 techniques described in the systematic review, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, osteochondral autograft transplantation and microfracture were the three frequently reported techniques. CONCLUSION: Over ten different techniques are available for cartilage repair in the hip, and most of them have good short- to medium-term outcomes. However, there are no robust comparative studies to assess superiority of one technique over another, and further research is required in this arena.
Authors: Abir N Mokbel; Omar S El Tookhy; Ashraf A Shamaa; Laila A Rashed; Dina Sabry; Abeer M El Sayed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Miguel O Castro; Vasco V Mascarenhas; P Diana Afonso; Paulo Rego; Florian Schmaranzer; Reto Sutter; Ara Kassarjian; Luca Sconfienza; Michael Dienst; Olufemi R Ayeni; Paul E Beaulé; Pedro Dantas; Radhesh Lalam; Marc-André Weber; Filip M Vanhoenacker; Tobias Johannes Dietrich; Lennart Jans; Philip Robinson; Apostolos H Karantanas; Iwona Sudoł-Szopińska; Suzanne Anderson; Iris Noebauer-Huhmann; Oliver Marin-Peña; Diego Collado; Marc Tey-Pons; Ehrenfried Schmaranzer; Mario Padron; Josef Kramer; Patrick O Zingg; Michel De Maeseneer; Eva Llopis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nils Wirries; Marco Ezechieli; Michael Schwarze; Alexander Derksen; Stefan Budde; Manuel Ribas; Henning Windhagen; Thilo Floerkemeier Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Florian Schmaranzer; Pascal C Haefeli; Emanuel F Liechti; Markus S Hanke; Moritz Tannast; Lorenz Büchler Journal: Cartilage Date: 2020-07-19 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Darren de Sa; Jayson Lian; Andrew J Sheean; Kathleen Inman; Nicholas Drain; Olufemi Ayeni; Craig Mauro Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2018-09-21