| Literature DB >> 29675506 |
Gabriele Pisanu1, Umberto Cottino1, Federica Rosso1, Davide Blonna1, Antonio Giulio Marmotti1, Corrado Bertolo1, Roberto Rossi1, Davide E Bonasia1.
Abstract
Large osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplant has become a valid alternative to restore articular surface in challenging articular lesions in young and active patients, either in primary or in revision procedures. Several studies support the effectiveness and safety of OCA, but costs and graft availability limit their use. The indications are the treatment of symptomatic full-thickness cartilage lesions greater than 3 cm 2 , deep lesions with subchondral damage, or revision procedures when a previous treatment has failed. The goal of the transplant is to restore the articular surface with a biological implant, allow return to daily/sports activities, relieve symptoms, and delay knee arthroplasty. Grafts can be fresh, fresh-frozen, or cryopreserved; these different storage procedures significantly affect cell viability, immunogenicity, and duration of the storage. Dowel and shell technique are the two most commonly used procedures for OCA transplantation. While most cartilage lesions can be treated with the dowel technique, large and/or geometrically irregular lesions should be treated with the shell technique. OCA transplantation for the knee has demonstrated reliable mid- to long-term results in terms of graft survival and patient satisfaction. Best results are reported: in unipolar lesions, in patients younger than 30 years, in traumatic lesions and when the treatment is performed within 12 months from the onset of symptoms.Entities:
Keywords: allograft; chondral lesion; knee; osteochondral allograft; osteochondral lesion
Year: 2018 PMID: 29675506 PMCID: PMC5906123 DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1636925
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Joints ISSN: 2512-9090
Fig. 1( A ) Anteroposterior X-ray view of a medial femoral condyle osteochondritis dissecans with varus malalignment. ( B ) Coronal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the same case. ( C ) Postoperative anteroposterior X-ray view after opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy and medial femoral condyle osteochondral autograft transplantations.
Fig. 2Intraoperative pictures of osteochondral autograft transplantations and distal femoral opening-wedge varus osteotomy for a lateral femoral condyle osteochondritis dissecans and valgus malalignment. ( A ) Creation of the recipient site. ( B ) Femoral condyle allograft on the workstation. ( C ) Creation of the osteochondral plug. ( D ) Gentle impaction of the plug in the recipient site (press-fit). ( E ) When necessary, the procedure can be repeated by creating a new recipient site. ( F ) Second plug in place.
Fig. 3( A ) Preoperative anteroposterior X-ray view of a lateral tibial plateau malunion with valgus malalignment. ( B ) Postoperative anteroposterior X-ray view after distal femoral closing-wedge varus osteotomy and lateral tibial plateau/meniscus transplant.
Fig. 4Intra-articular phase of the case described in Fig. 3. ( A ) Resection of the damaged lateral tibial plateau. ( B ) Lateral tibial plateau + lateral meniscus transplant (not the step-cut osteotomy to improve graft stability). ( C ) Fixation of the graft with two 3.5-mm cortical screws.
Pearls and pitfalls in the surgical technique
| Pearls | Pitfalls |
|---|---|
| Copiously irrigate cutting surfaces with saline solution while using reamer or saw to avoid edges heat necrosis | Delay the management of concomitant pathologies |
| Use a manual rasp to fine tune the graft size | Leave pathological tissue in the recipient site |
| Copiously irrigate the graft before the transplant to remove the last remaining bone marrow cells | Use OCA plugs > 10 mm of thickness |
| Find landmarks on both the graft and the recipient site to harvest the corresponding area | Uncorrected orientation of the graft into the recipient site |
| The extensor mechanism allograft must be tensioned tightly with the knee in full extension, avoiding ROM maneuvers at the end | Forcing the Implant of the graft and causing a damage to the cartilage superficial layer |
| Insert autologous bone graft in the recipient socket to improve graft stability in case of unperfected graft fitting or deep (>10 mm) lesions | Press-fit fixation of a downsized graft |
Abbreviation: OCA, osteochondral allograft.
Femoral osteochondral allograft results
| Author (year) | No. of cases (mean age) | Pathology | Technique | Follow-up | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davidson et al (2007) | 10 (32.6) | OCD, trauma | Dowel | 40 mo | Outerbridge MRI: 4.3 →0.6 IKDC: 27 → 79 Lysholm score: 37 → 78 |
| McCulloch et al (2007) | 25 (35) | OCD, trauma, osteonecrosis | Dowel | 2.9 y | Graft incorporation: 88% |
| Krych et al (2012) | 43 (32.9) | OCD, trauma idiopathic (7.2 cm 2 ) | Dowel | 2.5 y | Return to play: 80%; professional athletes 100% |
| McCarthy et al (2017) | 13 (19) | N/A | Dowel | 5.9 y | IKDC: 38 → 63 Lysholm score: 41 → 64 SF-12: 35 → 44 Return to play: 77% |
| Emmerson et al (2007) | 66 (28.6) | OCD | Dowel | 7.7 y | Survivorship: 91% at 2 y; 76% at 15 y |
| Levy et al (2013) | 129 (33) | OCD, trauma, osteonecrosis, idiopathic (8.1 cm 2 ) | Dowel | 13.5 y | Survivorship: 82% at 10 y, 74% at 15 y, 66% at 20 y |
| Murphy et al (2014) | 39 (16.4) | OCD, trauma, osteonecrosis, idiopathic | Dowel | 8.4 y | Survivorship analysis: 90% at 10 y IKDC: 42→75 |
| Raz et al (2014) | 58 (28) | OCD, trauma | Dowel | 21.8 y | Survivorship: 91% at 10 y; 84% at 15 y; 69% at 20 y; 59% at 25 y Failure rate: 22% |
| Nielsen et al (2017) | 149 (31) | OCD, trauma, idiopathic, osteonecrosis | Dowel | 6 y | Return to play: 75% IKDC: 42 → 74 D&P: 13→17 |
| Gross et al (2005) | 60 (42.8) | OCD, trauma, idiopathic, osteonecrosis | Shell | 11.8 y | Survivorship: 95% at 5 y; 85% at 10 y; 74% at 15 y Reoperation rate: 20% |
Abbreviations: ADL, Activity Daily living; D&P, D'Aubigné and Postel score; HSS, Hospital for Special Surgery score; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Criteria; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; KSF, Knee Society function score; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; N/A, not applicable; OCD, osteochondritis dissecans; SF-12, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey; SF-36, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.
Tibial osteochondral allograft results
| Author (year) | No. of cases (mean age) | Pathology | Adjuvant procedures | Follow-up | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross et al (2005) | 65 (42.8) | Trauma | MAT, DFO/HTO | 11.8 y | Survivorship: 95% at 5 y, 80% at 10 y, 65% at 15 y |
| Drexler et al (2015) | 27 | Trauma (15 cm 2 ) | DFO | 13.3 y | Survivorship: 89% at 10 y, 23.8% at 20 y KSF: 51 → 71 |
| Getgood et al (2015) | 48 (35.8) | Trauma, idiopathic | MAT | 6.8 y | Survivorship: 73% at 5 y, 68% at 10 y |
| Frank et al (2018) | 100 (31.7) | Idiopathic | MAT | 4.9 y | Survivorship: 86% at 5 y IKDC: 40 → 66 Reoperation rate: 35% |
Abbreviations: D&P, Merle D'Aubigné and Postel score; DFO, distal femoral osteotomy; HSS, Hospital for Special Surgery score; HTO, high tibial osteotomy; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Criteria; KSF, Knee Society function score; KSS, Knee Society score; MAT, meniscal allograft transplant.