OBJECTIVE: To compare radius of curvature (RoC) of distal femur osteochondral autograft transfer (OAT) donor sites from the intercondylar notch and trochlear ridge with recipient sites on the distal and posterior condyles and evaluate differences between recipient sites. DESIGN: Nineteen cadaveric femurs were scanned with a 3-dimensional high-resolution sensor. Donor regions included the lateral (LTR) and medial trochlear ridges (MTR), and the lateral (LICN) and medial intercondylar notch (MICN). Recipient regions analyzed were the distal medial (DMFC), posterior medial (PMFC), distal lateral (DLFC), and posterior lateral femur condyle (PLFC). Six-millimeter OAT grafts were simulated, and average RoC of all regions was compared using an analysis of variance. Post hoc testing was performed using Fisher's least significant difference. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in RoC of the LICN compared with all 4 recipient sites (P = 0.19, 0.97, 0.11, and 0.75 for DLFC, PLFC, DMFC, and PMFC, respectively) or the LTR and MTR to the posterior condyles (LTR vs. PLFC and PMFC; P = 0.72, 0.47, MTR vs. PLFC and PMFC P = 0.39, 0.22, respectively). Significant differences were found for RoC of the MICN compared with each recipient site (P < 0.001) and between distal and posterior femoral condyles (DLFC vs. PLFC, P = 0.016; DMFC vs. PMFC, P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: The LICN is the ideal donor option for all recipient sites on the femoral condyles with respect to RoC of 6-mm OAT plugs. The MTR and LTR were acceptable donor sources for the posterior condyles, while the MICN was a poor match for all recipient sites. Additionally, the distal femur condyle and posterior femur condyle have different RoCs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare radius of curvature (RoC) of distal femur osteochondral autograft transfer (OAT) donor sites from the intercondylar notch and trochlear ridge with recipient sites on the distal and posterior condyles and evaluate differences between recipient sites. DESIGN: Nineteen cadaveric femurs were scanned with a 3-dimensional high-resolution sensor. Donor regions included the lateral (LTR) and medial trochlear ridges (MTR), and the lateral (LICN) and medial intercondylar notch (MICN). Recipient regions analyzed were the distal medial (DMFC), posterior medial (PMFC), distal lateral (DLFC), and posterior lateral femur condyle (PLFC). Six-millimeter OAT grafts were simulated, and average RoC of all regions was compared using an analysis of variance. Post hoc testing was performed using Fisher's least significant difference. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in RoC of the LICN compared with all 4 recipient sites (P = 0.19, 0.97, 0.11, and 0.75 for DLFC, PLFC, DMFC, and PMFC, respectively) or the LTR and MTR to the posterior condyles (LTR vs. PLFC and PMFC; P = 0.72, 0.47, MTR vs. PLFC and PMFC P = 0.39, 0.22, respectively). Significant differences were found for RoC of the MICN compared with each recipient site (P < 0.001) and between distal and posterior femoral condyles (DLFC vs. PLFC, P = 0.016; DMFC vs. PMFC, P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: The LICN is the ideal donor option for all recipient sites on the femoral condyles with respect to RoC of 6-mm OAT plugs. The MTR and LTR were acceptable donor sources for the posterior condyles, while the MICN was a poor match for all recipient sites. Additionally, the distal femur condyle and posterior femur condyle have different RoCs.
Authors: Ralph B Garretson; Leonid I Katolik; Nikhil Verma; Paul R Beck; Bernard R Bach; Brian J Cole Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Kristina Linnea Welton; Stephanie Logterman; Justin H Bartley; Armando F Vidal; Eric C McCarty Journal: Clin Sports Med Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.182
Authors: Kai Mithoefer; Timothy McAdams; Riley J Williams; Peter C Kreuz; Bert R Mandelbaum Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-02-26 Impact factor: 6.202