| Literature DB >> 34250159 |
Daisuke Momma1, Tomohiro Onodera2, Daisuke Kawamura2, Atsushi Urita2, Yuichiro Matsui2, Rikiya Baba2, Tadanao Funakoshi3, Makoto Kondo4, Toshiya Endo5, Eiji Kondo1, Norimasa Iwasaki2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the most important limitations of osteochondral autograft transplant is the adverse effect on donor sites in the knee. Ultrapurified alginate (UPAL) gel is a novel biomaterial that enhances hyaline-like cartilage repair for articular defects. To avoid the need for knee cartilage autografting when treating osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the capitellum, we developed a surgical procedure involving a bone marrow stimulation technique (BMST) augmented by implantation of UPAL gel. HYPOTHESIS: BMST augmented by UPAL gel implantation improves the cartilage repair capacity and provides satisfactory clinical outcomes in OCD of the capitellum. STUDYEntities:
Keywords: biomaterial; capitellar osteochondritis dissecans; elbow; ultrapurified alginate gel
Year: 2021 PMID: 34250159 PMCID: PMC8237226 DOI: 10.1177/2325967121989676
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orthop J Sports Med ISSN: 2325-9671
Figure 1.(A) The radiohumeral joint is exposed posteriorly by splitting the anconeus muscle. A capitellar osteochondritis dissecans lesion is exposed with extreme elbow flexion, and the blood supply is confirmed after bone marrow stimulation technique. (B) Ultrapurified alginate gel is implanted into the prepared osteochondral defect (arrow).
Figure 2.Postoperative assessments at each time point. MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; T-A, Timmerman-Andrews.
Roberts Score Description
| Feature | Score |
|---|---|
| Surface integrity and contour | 1 = normal or near normal, 0 = abnormal |
| Cartilage signal in graft region | 1 = normal or near normal, 0 = abnormal |
| Cartilage thickness | 1 = normal or near normal, 0 = abnormal |
| Changes in underlying bone | 1 = normal or near normal, 0 = abnormal |
| Maximum total possible | 4 |
MOCART Score Description
| Variable | Class | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of defect repair and defect filling | Complete (on a level with adjacent) | 20 |
| Hypertrophy (over the level of the adjacent cartilage) | 15 | |
| Incomplete (under the level of the adjacent cartilage: underfilling) | ||
| >50% of the adjacent cartilage | 10 | |
| <50% of the adjacent cartilage | 5 | |
| Subchondral bone exposed (complete delamination or dislocation and/or loose body) | 0 | |
| Integration to border zone | Complete (complete integration with adjacent cartilage) | 15 |
| Incomplete (incomplete integration with adjacent cartilage), demarcation border visible (split-like) | 10 | |
| Defect visible | ||
| <50% of the length of the repair tissue | 5 | |
| >50% of the length of the repair tissue | 0 | |
| Surface of the repair tissue | Surface intact (lamina splendens intact) | 10 |
| Surface damaged (fibrillations, fissures, and ulcerations) | ||
| <50% of repair tissue depth | 5 | |
| >50% of repair tissue depth or total degeneration | 0 | |
| Structure of the repair tissue | Homogeneous | 5 |
| Inhomogeneous of cleft formation | 0 | |
| Signal intensity of the repair tissue | Isointense | 30 |
| Moderately hyperintense | 10 | |
| Markedly hyperintense | 0 | |
| Subchondral lamina | Intact | 5 |
| Not intact | 0 | |
| Subchondral bone | Intact | 5 |
| Edema, granulation tissue, cysts, sclerosis | 0 | |
| Adhesions | No | 5 |
| Yes | 0 | |
| Effusion | No effusion | 5 |
| Effusion | 0 | |
| Maximum score | 100 |
Characteristics of the Study Participants
| Patient No. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Mean | |
| Age, y | 18 | 35 | 18 | 13 | 14 | 19.6 |
| Dominant side | Right | Right | Right | Right | Right | |
| Sport | Self-defense | Baseball | Table tennis | Baseball | Baseball | |
| Height, cm | 176.4 | 177.5 | 176.5 | 163 | 173.6 | 173.4 |
| Weight, kg | 70 | 78.4 | 100 | 77.1 | 72.8 | 79.7 |
| Minami classification | Displaced | Displaced | Detached | Detached | Displaced | |
| Defect size, cm2 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| ICRS grade | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | |
| 2nd-look surgery, wk postoperative | NA | 72 | 96 | 87 | 86 | 85 |
| ICRS grade at 2nd-look surgery | NA | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| Duration of follow-up, wk | 96 | 96 | 98 | 99 | 97 | 97.2 |
| Total arc of elbow motion, deg | ||||||
| Preoperative | 100 | 100 | 80 | 105 | 115 | 100 |
| Postoperative | 140 | 130 | 110 | 135 | 140 | 131 |
| Timmerman-Andrews score | ||||||
| Preoperative | 90 | 105 | 105 | 105 | 95 | 100 |
| Postoperative | 200 | 195 | 175 | 200 | 200 | 194 |
ICRS, International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society; NA, not available.
Figure 3.Mean Timmerman-Andrews scores plotted versus time. Error bars indicate standard deviations. *P < .0001 versus preoperative score.
Figure 4.(A) Preoperative and postoperative MRI scans of the same patient depicted in Figure 1 (B) Mean Roberts score plotted versus time. (C) Mean MOCART score plotted versus time. Error bars indicate standard deviations.
Figure 5.(A) Second-look arthroscopy of the same patient depicted in Figure 1, at 86 weeks after treatment. Repair biopsy specimen stained for (B) safranin O (S-O), (C) collagen type II (Col II), and (D) hematoxylin and eosin (H-E). All scale bars: 0.5 mm. (E) Plot of International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society (ICRS) Visual Assessment Scale II histologic scores.