| Literature DB >> 31192269 |
Takahiro Ogura1,2, Gergo Merkely2,3, Tim Bryant2, Carl S Winalski4, Tom Minas2,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic osteochondral defects are difficult to manage, especially in patients with deep (>8-10 mm) empty defects. The restoration of articular congruence is crucial to avoid the progression to osteoarthritis (OA).Entities:
Keywords: articular; autologous bone graft; autologous chondrocyte implantation; cartilage; osteochondral lesion; osteochondral unit
Year: 2019 PMID: 31192269 PMCID: PMC6540512 DOI: 10.1177/2325967119847173
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orthop J Sports Med ISSN: 2325-9671
Figure 1.Autologous chondrocyte implantation segmental-sandwich technique. (A) Osteochondral defect: the bone defect is smaller than the overlying chondral defect. (B) Preparation of the bone defect: a high-speed bur, usually 8 mm in diameter, removed all subchondral sclerotic bone back to healthy-appearing spongy bone. Then, a 3 mm–diameter bur undermined the subchondral bone to secure the membrane when it was glued to the graft with overlying gentle pressure. (C) Fibrin glue was applied over the bone graft, and the membrane was secured. The second membrane was then sutured to the surface with the tourniquet down and with a dry defect bed. The cultured chondrocytes were then injected into the sealed cavity. The bone grafted area was smaller than the overlying chondral defect.
Figure 2.Intraoperative photographs and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A 22-year-old male football player who underwent prior treatment of a medial femoral condyle (MFC) defect with a fresh osteochondral allograft that failed by resorption and collapse of the allograft. (A) Debrided defect of the MFC with osseous deficiency from removal of the allograft and extension of chondral degeneration around it, producing a segmental bone defect of the surface chondral area. (B) Osseous defect bone grafted with autologous cancellous bone to the level of the adjacent subchondral bone. (C) The osseous bone grafted area was then covered with fibrin glue and a membrane, the area was covered with a neural patty, and the tourniquet was let down. The overall area was then covered with a second membrane that was sutured and filled with cells. (D) Coronal view (T1-weighted) showing complete osseous defect filling (black arrow) and complete chondral defect filling with a congruent articular surface (white arrow) at 6 months postoperatively. (E) Sagittal view showing complete chondral defect filling (over the bone grafted [black arrows] and non–bone grafted [white arrows] areas). This case was included in the present study; however, the MRI results were excluded, as postoperative MRI was performed at 6 months postoperatively and did not meet the inclusion criteria of MRI evaluations (>1 year after index surgery).
Figure 3.Modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System: overall condition.
Patient Demographics and Lesion Characteristics (N = 15)
| Patient | Age, y (Sex) | Cause | Segmental Sandwich Location/Type of Membrane | Chondral Lesion Area, cm2 | Bone Defect Area, cm2 | Bone Defect Depth, cm | Bone Defect Size of Chondral Lesion, % | Additional Chondral Lesions, Location/Size, cm2 | Concomitant Surgery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 39 (M) | OCD | MFC/periosteum | 12.0 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 15 | None | HTO |
| 2 | 39 (M) | OCD | MFC/periosteum | 13.5 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 28 | None | HTO |
| 3 | 22 (F) | OCD | MFC/periosteum | 3.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 13 | None | HTO + TTO |
| 4 | 22 (F) | Failed OAT | MFC/periosteum | 3.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 27 | LFC/2.5, trochlea/5.5 | TTO |
| 5 | 18 (M) | OCD | MFC/periosteum | 7.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 14 | None | None |
| 6 | 38 (M) | OCD | Trochlea/collagen | 7.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 13 | None | TTO |
| 7 | 33 (M) | Cyst | Trochlea/collagen | 2.2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 45 | Patella/3.0 | None |
| 8 | 24 (M) | Failed MFX, OAT, and OCA | MFC/collagen | 9.0 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 44 | LFC/4.8, trochlea/7.5 | TTO |
| 9 | 34 (M) | Failed OAT | Patella/collagen | 6.2 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 57 | LFC/5.3 | TTO |
| 10 | 42 (M) | Failed OAT | Trochlea/collagen | 2.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 40 | MFC/7.0 | HTO + TTO |
| 11 | 32 (M) | Cyst | MFC/collagen | 6.4 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 10 | None | HTO |
| 12 | 43 (M) | Cyst | Patella/collagen | 4.0 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 16 | LFC/1.8 | TTO |
| 13 | 16 (M) | OCD | Trochlea/collagen | 1.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 67 | Patella/1.5 | TTO |
| 14 | 35 (F) | Cyst | Trochlea/collagen | 3.6 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 42 | Patella/6.3 | TTO |
| 15 | 22 (M) | Cyst | MFC/collagen | 6.8 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 39 | None | None |
F, female; HTO, high tibial osteotomy; LFC, lateral femoral condyle; M, male; MFC, medial femoral condyle; MFX, microfracture; OAT, osteochondral autograft transplantation; OCA, osteochondral allograft transplantation; OCD, osteochondritis dissecans; TTO, tibial tubercle osteotomy.
Preoperative and Final Follow-up Clinical Outcomes
| Preoperative | Final Follow-up |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System | 2.9 ± 1.1 | 6.4 ± 1.8 | <.001 |
| VAS for pain | 7.3 ± 1.9 | 2.8 ± 1.5 | <.001 |
| WOMAC | |||
| Total | 50.5 ± 17.8 | 16.4 ± 9.3 | <.001 |
| Pain | 11.2 ± 4.3 | 3.7 ± 2.8 | <.001 |
| Stiffness | 4.3 ± 1.7 | 2.1 ± 1.8 | <.001 |
| Function | 34.9 ± 13.0 | 10.7 ± 6.7 | <.001 |
| Short Form–36 | |||
| PCS | 36.3 ± 8.9 | 47.8 ± 8.6 | <.001 |
| MCS | 47.3 ± 7.9 | 53.8 ± 6.6 | .0116 |
Data are reported as mean ± SD. MCS, mental component summary; PCS, physical component summary; Short Form–36, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; VAS, visual analog scale; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.
Satisfaction With the Procedure at Final Follow-up (N = 15)
| Question | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Compared with before surgery, how would you rate the operated joint now? | |
| Better | 14 (93) |
| About the same | 0 (0) |
| Worse | 1 (7) |
| What is your overall satisfaction level with the joint surgical procedure? | |
| Satisfied | 14 (93) |
| Neutral | 1 (7) |
| Dissatisfied | 0 (0) |
| If you could go back in time and make the decision again, would you choose to undergo your joint surgery? | |
| Yes | 15 (100) |
| Uncertain | 0 (0) |
| No | 0 (0) |
| How would you rate the results of your joint surgery? | |
| Good/excellent | 13 (87) |
| Fair | 2 (13) |
| Poor | 0 (0) |
Subsequent Surgical Procedures
| Periosteal Membrane Patch Group (n = 2/5; 40%) | Collagen Membrane Patch Group (n = 6/10; 60%) | Total (n = 8/15; 53%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adhesions | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Graft hypertrophy | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Membrane flap debridement | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Hemarthrosis | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 3 | 8 | 11 |
Data are reported as No.
Characteristics of Repaired Cartilage (MOCART Score) and Bone
| Patient | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | |
| MRI after surgery, y | 1.5 | 4.9 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 7.8 | 6.7 | 3.6 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 2.1 |
| MOCART score | ||||||||||||
| Degree of defect repair and filling of defect | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 20 | 10 | 20 | 10 |
| Integration to border zone | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Surface of repair tissue | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 0 |
| Structure of repair tissue | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Signal intensity of repair tissue | 10 | 30 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 30 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| Subchondral lamina | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Subchondral bone | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Adhesions | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 55 | 5 |
| Effusion | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Total score | 60 | 95 | 70 | 65 | 25 | 75 | 90 | 60 | 70 | 55 | 70 | 35 |
| Degree of filling of bone defect, % | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 75-100 | 100 | 100 | 75-100 |
| Bone defect fill composition | ||||||||||||
| Bone defect fill that is bone (not soft tissue), % | 0-25 | 100 | 75-100 | 50-75 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 75-100 | 100 | 50-75 | 25-50 |
| Edema-like marrow signal intensity in bone fill | Severe | No edema | Severe | Mild | Severe | No edema | No edema | No edema | Mild | No edema | No edema | Moderate |
MOCART, magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.
MOCART and MRI Evaluation of Repaired Cartilage
| Points | n (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of defect repair and filling of defect | ||
| Complete | 20 | 8 (66.6) |
| Hypertrophy | 15 | 0 (0.0) |
| Incomplete | ||
| 75% to 100% of adjacent cartilage | 10 | 2 (16.6) |
| 50% to <75% of adjacent cartilage | 10 | 2 (16.6) |
| <50% of adjacent cartilage | 5 | 0 (0.0) |
| Subchondral bone exposed | 0 | 0 (0.0) |
| Integration to border zone | ||
| Complete | 15 | 10 (83.3) |
| Incomplete | ||
| Demarcating border visible (splitlike) | 10 | 1 (8.3) |
| Defect visible | ||
| <50% of length of repair tissue | 5 | 1 (8.3) |
| ≥50% of length of repair tissue | 0 | 0 (0.0) |
| Surface of repair tissue | ||
| Surface intact | 10 | 10 (83.3) |
| Surface damaged | ||
| <50% of repair tissue depth | 5 | 2 (16.7) |
| ≥50% of repair tissue depth or total degeneration | 0 | 0 (0.0) |
| Structure of repair tissue | ||
| Homogeneous | 5 | 6 (50.0) |
| Inhomogeneous or cleft formation | 0 | 6 (50.0) |
| Signal intensity of repair tissue | ||
| Isointense | 30 | 2 (16.7) |
| Moderately hyperintense | 10 | 8 (66.6) |
| Markedly hyperintense | 0 | 2 (16.7) |
| Subchondral lamina | ||
| Intact | 5 | 4 (33.3) |
| Not intact | 0 | 8 (66.6) |
| Subchondral bone | ||
| Intact | 5 | 8 (66.6) |
| Granulation tissue, cyst, sclerosis | 0 | 4 (33.3) |
| Adhesions | ||
| No | 5 | 11 (91.7) |
| Yes | 0 | 1 (8.3) |
| Effusion | ||
| No | 5 | 4 (33.3) |
| Yes | 0 | 8 (66.6) |
MOCART, magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.
Modified from the original 2-dimensional MOCART score.