Bjørn B Christensen1,2, Anders El-Galaly3,4, Jens Ole Laursen5, Martin Lind6. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark. 2. Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Interdisciplinary Orthopedics, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Hospital of Southern Jutland, Sydals, Denmark. 6. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Focal cartilage injuries are debilitating and difficult to treat. Biological cartilage repair procedures are used for patients younger than 40 years, and knee arthroplasties are generally reserved for patients older than 60 years. Resurfacing implants are well suited for patients in this treatment gap. The objective was to investigate the 10-year survival of resurfacing implants in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, patients treated with resurfacing implants were followed longitudinally in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry from 1997 to 2020. The primary endpoint was revision surgery. The survival of the resurfacing implants was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 379 resurfacing implant procedures were retrieved from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. The mean age and weight of patients were 50 years (SD = 11) and 84 kg (SD = 17), respectively. The indications for surgery were as follows: secondary osteoarthritis (42%), primary osteoarthritis (32%), and osteochondral lesions (20%). Within the follow-up period, 70 (19%) of the implants were revised to arthroplasties. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year revision-free survival estimation was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84), respectively. The median time to revision was 2 years. CONCLUSION: The 10-year revision-free survival rate for resurfacing implants was 80%. Based on the revision rates, this treatment offers a viable alternative to biological cartilage repair methods in patients aged 40 to 60 years with focal cartilage pathology. Improved patient selection could further improve the implant survival rate. Further studies are needed to investigate this treatment method.
OBJECTIVE: Focal cartilage injuries are debilitating and difficult to treat. Biological cartilage repair procedures are used for patients younger than 40 years, and knee arthroplasties are generally reserved for patients older than 60 years. Resurfacing implants are well suited for patients in this treatment gap. The objective was to investigate the 10-year survival of resurfacing implants in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, patients treated with resurfacing implants were followed longitudinally in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry from 1997 to 2020. The primary endpoint was revision surgery. The survival of the resurfacing implants was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 379 resurfacing implant procedures were retrieved from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. The mean age and weight of patients were 50 years (SD = 11) and 84 kg (SD = 17), respectively. The indications for surgery were as follows: secondary osteoarthritis (42%), primary osteoarthritis (32%), and osteochondral lesions (20%). Within the follow-up period, 70 (19%) of the implants were revised to arthroplasties. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year revision-free survival estimation was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84), respectively. The median time to revision was 2 years. CONCLUSION: The 10-year revision-free survival rate for resurfacing implants was 80%. Based on the revision rates, this treatment offers a viable alternative to biological cartilage repair methods in patients aged 40 to 60 years with focal cartilage pathology. Improved patient selection could further improve the implant survival rate. Further studies are needed to investigate this treatment method.
Authors: Johannes Holz; Tim Spalding; Tarek Boutefnouchet; Pieter Emans; Karl Eriksson; Mats Brittberg; Lars Konradsen; Clemens Kösters; Peter Verdonk; Magnus Högström; Martin Lind Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 4.114