Literature DB >> 33448238

Joint Surface Lesions in the Knee Treated with an Acellular Aragonite-Based Scaffold: A 3-Year Follow-Up Case Series.

Wouter Van Genechten1,2, Kristien Vuylsteke1, Caroline Struijk2, Linus Swinnen3, Peter Verdonk1,2,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome and repair capacity of a cell-free aragonite-based scaffold in patients with an isolated symptomatic joint surface lesion (JSL) of the knee.
DESIGN: Thirteen patients (age 33.5 ± 8.9; female 23%; body mass index 25.3 ± 3.4, K/L [Kellgren-Lawrence] 1.8) with a JSL (2.6 ± 1.7 cm2 [1.0-7.5 cm2]) of the distal femur were enrolled in a single-center prospective case series. Safety and clinical outcome was assessed by the KOOS (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score), IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee), Lysholm, and Tegner activity scale at baseline and 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months follow-up. The MOCART 2.0 and scaffold integration were evaluated on magnetic resonance imaging at 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Primary outcome (KOOS pain) improved with 36.5 ± 14.7 points at 12 months (P = 0.002) and 41.2 ± 14.7 points at 36 months (P = 0.002) follow-up. Similar increasing trends were observed for the other KOOS subscales, IKDC, and Lysholm score, which were significantly better at each follow-up time point relative to baseline (P < 0.05). Activity level increased from 2.75 ± 1.6 to 4.6 ± 2.2 points at final follow-up (P = 0.07). The MOCART was 61.7 ± 12.6 at 12 months and 72.9 ± 13.0 at 36 months postoperatively. Sixty-six to 100% implant integration and remodeling was observed in 73.3% cases at 36 months. No serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that the biphasic aragonite-based scaffold is a safe and clinically effective implant for treating small-medium sized JSLs of the distal femur in a young and active patient cohort. The implant showed satisfying osteointegration and restoration of the osteochondral unit up to 3 years postimplantation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cartilage repair; knee; natural materials; remodeling; scaffolds

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33448238      PMCID: PMC8808874          DOI: 10.1177/1947603520988164

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cartilage        ISSN: 1947-6035            Impact factor:   3.117


  34 in total

1.  Hard tissue remodeling using biofabricated coralline biomaterials.

Authors:  Razi Vago; Daniel Plotquin; Alex Bunin; Igor Sinelnikov; Dan Atar; David Itzhak
Journal:  J Biochem Biophys Methods       Date:  2002-01-04

2.  Cartilage injuries: a review of 31,516 knee arthroscopies.

Authors:  W W Curl; J Krome; E S Gordon; J Rushing; B P Smith; G G Poehling
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Clinical and radiological outcome for Trufit Plug in the treatment of chondral and osteochondral lesions at a minimum of 2 years.

Authors:  Amir Azam; Mark Forster; Angus Robertson
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-01-10

4.  Clinical Outcomes and Failure Rates of Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation in the Knee: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Filippo Familiari; Mark E Cinque; Jorge Chahla; Jonathan A Godin; Morten Lykke Olesen; Gilbert Moatshe; Robert F LaPrade
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 6.202

5.  Synthetic resorbable scaffolds for the treatment of isolated patellofemoral cartilage defects in young patients: magnetic resonance imaging and clinical evaluation.

Authors:  Nayana Joshi; Mercè Reverte-Vinaixa; Eugenio Wenceslao Díaz-Ferreiro; Rosa Domínguez-Oronoz
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  Articular cartilage lesions in 993 consecutive knee arthroscopies.

Authors:  Asbjørn Arøen; Sverre Løken; Stig Heir; Elling Alvik; Arne Ekeland; Odd G Granlund; Lars Engebretsen
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.202

Review 7.  Is magnetic resonance imaging reliable in predicting clinical outcome after articular cartilage repair of the knee? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tommy S de Windt; Goetz H Welsch; Mats Brittberg; Lucienne A Vonk; Stefan Marlovits; Siegfried Trattnig; Daniel B F Saris
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  The natural history of cartilage defects in people with knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  M L Davies-Tuck; A E Wluka; Y Wang; A J Teichtahl; G Jones; C Ding; F M Cicuttini
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2007-08-16       Impact factor: 6.576

9.  Guidelines for the Design and Conduct of Clinical Studies in Knee Articular Cartilage Repair: International Cartilage Repair Society Recommendations Based on Current Scientific Evidence and Standards of Clinical Care.

Authors:  Kai Mithoefer; Daniel B F Saris; Jack Farr; Elizaveta Kon; Kenneth Zaslav; Brian J Cole; Jonas Ranstam; Jian Yao; Matthew Shive; David Levine; Wilfried Dalemans; Mats Brittberg
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 10.  Bone substitutes: a review of their characteristics, clinical use, and perspectives for large bone defects management.

Authors:  Gabriel Fernandez de Grado; Laetitia Keller; Ysia Idoux-Gillet; Quentin Wagner; Anne-Marie Musset; Nadia Benkirane-Jessel; Fabien Bornert; Damien Offner
Journal:  J Tissue Eng       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 7.813

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.