Jesus Medina1, Ignacio Garcia-Mansilla2, Peter D Fabricant3, Thomas J Kremen4, Seth L Sherman5, Kristofer Jones4. 1. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Knee Division, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 3. Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Orthopedic Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Stanford Cardinal Football, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the current practice trends for managing symptomatic cartilage lesions of the knee with microfracture among ICRS (International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Repair Society) members. DESIGN: A 42-item electronic questionnaire was sent to all ICRS members, which explored indications, surgical technique, postoperative management, and outcomes of the microfracture procedure for the treatment of symptomatic, full thickness chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee. Responses were compared between surgeons from different regions and years of practice. RESULTS: A total of 385 surgeons answered the questionnaire. There was a significant difference noted in the use of microfracture among surgeons by region (P < 0.001). There was no association between the number of years in practice and the self-reported proportion of microfracture cases performed (P = 0.37). Fifty-eight subjects (15%) indicated that they do not perform microfracture at all. Regarding indication for surgery, 56% of surgeons would limit their indication of microfracture to lesions measuring 2 cm2 or less. Half of the surgeons reported no upper age or body mass index limit. Regarding surgical technique, 90% of surgeons would recommend a formal debridement of the calcified layer and 91% believe it is important to create stable vertical walls. Overall, 47% of surgeons use biologic augmentation, with no significant difference between regions (P = 0.35) or years of practice (P = 0.67). Rehabilitation protocols varied widely among surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Indications, operative technique, and rehabilitation protocols utilized for patients undergoing microfracture procedures vary widely among ICRS members. Regional differences and resources likely contribute to these practice pattern variations.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the current practice trends for managing symptomatic cartilage lesions of the knee with microfracture among ICRS (International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Repair Society) members. DESIGN: A 42-item electronic questionnaire was sent to all ICRS members, which explored indications, surgical technique, postoperative management, and outcomes of the microfracture procedure for the treatment of symptomatic, full thickness chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee. Responses were compared between surgeons from different regions and years of practice. RESULTS: A total of 385 surgeons answered the questionnaire. There was a significant difference noted in the use of microfracture among surgeons by region (P < 0.001). There was no association between the number of years in practice and the self-reported proportion of microfracture cases performed (P = 0.37). Fifty-eight subjects (15%) indicated that they do not perform microfracture at all. Regarding indication for surgery, 56% of surgeons would limit their indication of microfracture to lesions measuring 2 cm2 or less. Half of the surgeons reported no upper age or body mass index limit. Regarding surgical technique, 90% of surgeons would recommend a formal debridement of the calcified layer and 91% believe it is important to create stable vertical walls. Overall, 47% of surgeons use biologic augmentation, with no significant difference between regions (P = 0.35) or years of practice (P = 0.67). Rehabilitation protocols varied widely among surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Indications, operative technique, and rehabilitation protocols utilized for patients undergoing microfracture procedures vary widely among ICRS members. Regional differences and resources likely contribute to these practice pattern variations.
Authors: John Theodoropoulos; Tim Dwyer; Daniel Whelan; Paul Marks; Mark Hurtig; Pankaj Sharma Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Jonathan C Riboh; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Brian J Cole; Adam B Yanke Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Byoung-Hyun Min; Minh-Dung Truong; Hyung Keun Song; Jae Ho Cho; Do Young Park; Heon Ju Kweon; Jun Young Chung Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Kyle John Hancock; Robert R Westermann; Alan Gregory Shamrock; Kyle R Duchman; Brian R Wolf; Annunziato Amendola Journal: J Knee Surg Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: K P H Pritzker; S Gay; S A Jimenez; K Ostergaard; J-P Pelletier; P A Revell; D Salter; W B van den Berg Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: J Richard Steadman; Karen K Briggs; Juan J Rodrigo; Mininder S Kocher; Thomas J Gill; William G Rodkey Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.772