Peter Ernst Müller1, David Gallik1, Florian Hammerschmid1, Andrea Baur-Melnyk2, Matthias Frank Pietschmann1, Anja Zhang1, Thomas Richard Niethammer3. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. thomas.niethammer@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an established and frequently used method and successful method for the treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects in the knee. There are also an increasing number of patients with autologous chondrocyte implantation as a second-line therapy that is used after failed bone marrow stimulation in the patient's history. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of previous bone marrow stimulation on subsequent autologous chondrocyte implantation therapy. In this study, the clinical results after the matrix-based autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee in a follow-up over 3 years postoperatively were analysed. METHODS: Forty patients were included in this study. A total of 20 patients with cartilage defects of the knee were treated with third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation (Novocart® 3D) as first-line therapy. The mean defect size was 5.4 cm2 (SD 2.6). IKDC subjective score and VAS were used for clinical evaluation after 6, 12, 24 and 36 months postoperatively. The results of these patients were compared with 20 matched patients with autologous chondrocyte implantation as second-line therapy. Matched pair analysis was performed by numbers of treated defects, defect location, defect size, gender, age and BMI. RESULTS: Both the first-line (Group I) and second-line group (Group II) showed significantly better clinical results in IKDC score and VAS score in the follow-up over 3 years compared with the preoperative findings. In addition, Group I showed significantly better results in the IKDC and VAS during the whole postoperative follow-up after 6, 12, 24 and 36 months compared to Group II with second-line autologous chondrocyte implantation (IKDC 6 months p = 0.015, 1 year p = 0.001, 2 years p = 0.001, 3 years p = 0.011). Additionally, we found a lower failure rate in Group I. No revision surgery was performed in Group I. The failure rate in the second-line Group II was 30%. CONCLUSION: This study showed that third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation is a suitable method for the treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects. Both, Group I and Group II showed significant improvement in our follow-up. However, in comparing the results of the two groups, autologous chondrocyte implantation after failed bone marrow stimulation leads to worse clinical results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: Third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an established and frequently used method and successful method for the treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects in the knee. There are also an increasing number of patients with autologous chondrocyte implantation as a second-line therapy that is used after failed bone marrow stimulation in the patient's history. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of previous bone marrow stimulation on subsequent autologous chondrocyte implantation therapy. In this study, the clinical results after the matrix-based autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee in a follow-up over 3 years postoperatively were analysed. METHODS: Forty patients were included in this study. A total of 20 patients with cartilage defects of the knee were treated with third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation (Novocart® 3D) as first-line therapy. The mean defect size was 5.4 cm2 (SD 2.6). IKDC subjective score and VAS were used for clinical evaluation after 6, 12, 24 and 36 months postoperatively. The results of these patients were compared with 20 matched patients with autologous chondrocyte implantation as second-line therapy. Matched pair analysis was performed by numbers of treated defects, defect location, defect size, gender, age and BMI. RESULTS: Both the first-line (Group I) and second-line group (Group II) showed significantly better clinical results in IKDC score and VAS score in the follow-up over 3 years compared with the preoperative findings. In addition, Group I showed significantly better results in the IKDC and VAS during the whole postoperative follow-up after 6, 12, 24 and 36 months compared to Group II with second-line autologous chondrocyte implantation (IKDC 6 months p = 0.015, 1 year p = 0.001, 2 years p = 0.001, 3 years p = 0.011). Additionally, we found a lower failure rate in Group I. No revision surgery was performed in Group I. The failure rate in the second-line Group II was 30%. CONCLUSION: This study showed that third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation is a suitable method for the treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects. Both, Group I and Group II showed significant improvement in our follow-up. However, in comparing the results of the two groups, autologous chondrocyte implantation after failed bone marrow stimulation leads to worse clinical results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Raman Mundi; Asheesh Bedi; Linda Chow; Sarah Crouch; Nicole Simunovic; Elizabeth Sibilsky Enselman; Olufemi R Ayeni Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Thomas R Niethammer; Thomas Niethammer; Siegfried Valentin; Andreas Ficklscherer; Mehmet F Gülecyüz; Mehmet Gülecyüz; Matthias F Pietschmann; Matthias Pietschmann; Peter E Müller; Peter Müller Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Philipp Niemeyer; Jan M Pestka; Gian M Salzmann; Norbert P Südkamp; Hagen Schmal Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Elizaveta Kon; Alberto Gobbi; Giuseppe Filardo; Marco Delcogliano; Stefano Zaffagnini; Maurilio Marcacci Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Laurence D Higgins; Marcus K Taylor; Daniel Park; Neil Ghodadra; Milford Marchant; Ricardo Pietrobon; Chad Cook Journal: Joint Bone Spine Date: 2007-08-06 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: Kenneth Zaslav; Brian Cole; Robert Brewster; Thomas DeBerardino; Jack Farr; Peter Fowler; Carl Nissen Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Thomas R Niethammer; David Gallik; Y Chevalier; Martin Holzgruber; Andrea Baur-Melnyk; Peter E Müller; Matthias F Pietschmann Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2020-12-06 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Charles J Cogan; James Friedman; Jae You; Alan L Zhang; Brian T Feeley; C Benjamin Ma; Drew A Lansdown Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-09-24
Authors: Thomas Richard Niethammer; Felix Uhlemann; Anja Zhang; Martin Holzgruber; Ferdinand Wagner; Peter Ernst Müller Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 4.114