Literature DB >> 30611347

Cartilage Restoration Surgery: Incidence Rates, Complications, and Trends as Reported by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Candidates.

Rachel M Frank1, Eric J Cotter2, Charles P Hannon3, John J Harrast4, Brian J Cole3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the current status of advanced cartilage restoration procedures among newly trained orthopaedic surgeons in the United States.
METHODS: The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database was queried to identify all advanced cartilage restoration procedure cases submitted by American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery part II board certification examination candidates from 2003 to 2015. All documented autologous chondrocyte implantation, autologous osteochondral transfer, osteochondral allograft transplantation, and marrow stimulation techniques (MSTs) procedures were analyzed. Analysis was performed to describe trends in annual incidence, types of complications, concomitant procedures, and geographical differences in incidence of advanced cartilage procedures.
RESULTS: From 2003 to 2015, a total of 2,827 surgeons submitted 7,522 cartilage restoration procedures, with 7,060 cases documented as MST (80.01%). The number of cartilage cases decreased significantly from 2003 to in 2015 (P <.001), with MST having the largest decline (P < .001). The incidence of open osteochondral allograft transplantation (odds ratio = 1.35; P = .023) and open autologous osteochondral transfer (odds ratio = 0.84; P = .004) increased over the study period. Overall, the majority of patients (57.0%) were male; however, female patients were on average significantly older than male patients (P < .001). Cartilage procedures were performed concomitantly with a realignment osteotomy procedure in 1.7% of cases. The incidence of surgical complications increased throughout the study period from 2.9% in 2003 to 9.5% in 2015 (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Cartilage restoration procedures, specifically MSTs, are being decreasingly performed among recently trained orthopaedic surgeons. In contrast, complication rates have been increasing since 2003, demonstrating a possible paradigm shift toward more complex cartilage procedures, specifically osteochondral grafting procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates a significant decline in the use of MSTs by recently trained orthopaedic surgeons. In addition, an increase in several more complex cartilage restoration procedures was found. Taken in sum, these changes may reflect a shift in residency and fellowship training away from marrow stimulation procedures that elicit a fibrocartilage reparative tissue and toward more complex procedures that provide a more hyaline-like articular cartilage surface.
Copyright © 2019 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30611347     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.08.028

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


  9 in total

1.  Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting: A Scientometric Analysis of Two Decades of Progress.

Authors:  Sara Cristina Pedroza-González; Marisela Rodriguez-Salvador; Baruc Emet Pérez-Benítez; Mario Moisés Alvarez; Grissel Trujillo-de Santiago
Journal:  Int J Bioprint       Date:  2021-04-20

2.  Trends in the Treatment of Biceps Pathology: An Analysis of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database.

Authors:  John W Belk; Steven D Jones; Stephen G Thon; Rachel M Frank
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-12-29

Review 3.  Biologic Augmentation for the Operative Treatment of Osteochondral Defects of the Knee: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Deepak V Chona; Stephanie T Kha; Paul D Minetos; Christopher M LaPrade; Constance R Chu; Geoffrey D Abrams; Marc R Safran; Seth L Sherman
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-11-04

4.  The Effect of Bone Marrow Stimulation for Cartilage Repair on the Subchondral Bone Plate.

Authors:  Simone Birkebæk Elmholt; Kris Chadwick Hede; Bjørn Borsøe Christensen; Jesper Skovhus Thomsen; Martin Lind
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Global Variation in Studies of Articular Cartilage Procedures of the Knee: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  R Garrett Steinmetz; J Jared Guth; Matthew J Matava; Matthew V Smith; Robert H Brophy
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2022 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Demographics in Patients Receiving Matrix-Assisted Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI) in the Ankle.

Authors:  Kris T C Hede; Andreas H Gomoll; Casper Bindzus Foldager
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  Long-term total hip arthroplasty rates in patients with acetabular and pelvic fractures after surgery: A population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Tzu-Chun Chung; Tzu-Shan Chen; Yao-Chun Hsu; Feng-Chen Kao; Yuan-Kun Tu; Pao-Hsin Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Quality and Variability of Physical Therapy Protocols Varies Widely for Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation of the Femoral Condyles.

Authors:  Ignacio Garcia-Mansilla; Myra Trivellas; Amit Singla; Benjamin Kelley; Kristofer J Jones
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Metrics of OsteoChondral Allografts (MOCA) Group Consensus Statements on the Use of Viable Osteochondral Allograft.

Authors:  Simon Görtz; Suzanne M Tabbaa; Deryk G Jones; John D Polousky; Dennis C Crawford; William D Bugbee; Brian J Cole; Jack Farr; James E Fleischli; Alan Getgood; Andreas H Gomoll; Allan E Gross; Aaron J Krych; Christian Lattermann; Bert R Mandelbaum; Peter R Mandt; Raffy Mirzayan; Timothy S Mologne; Matthew T Provencher; Scott A Rodeo; Oleg Safir; Eric D Strauss; Christopher J Wahl; Riley J Williams; Adam B Yanke
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-03-23
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.