Aim: evaluation of articular cartilage defects repair of the knee by
Purpose: To assess costs and health status outcomes following ACI and
Purpose: We report the results of a prospective consecutive series of 25 patient with non-degenerative chondral lesions treated by
The past ten years have brought plenty of research and technical innovations and also preliminary clinical success in cartilage repair. The common target of all methods utilised is to produce a sufficiently stable quality of cartilage repair or regenerate. However, yet today clinical, radiological and histological results analysing the different techniques are somewhat contradictory. The different lines of clinically applied and basic research have focused on:. 1) Spontaneous natural filling of the defect with fibro-cartilage of variable solidity. - Abrasion chondroplasty, drilling or microfracturing to allow for mobilisation of progenitor cells and mesenchymal stem cells from the cancellous bone into the defect and develop to a hyaline like cartilage. - Stem cell treatment (in vivo or ex vivo theory of potential technique by which stem cells could be brought to a defect to create cartilage; so far no directly linked product available). 2) Transplantation of osteochondral auto grafts (Mosaicplasty, OATS, SDS, patellar graft) or allograft. 3a) Autologous chondrocyte transplantation and periosteal coverage (ACT) to cover bigger surfaces. 3b) Implantation of second and third generation ex vivo products and create less morbidity but without knowing whether the results are as long-lasting as for the originally described technique (chondrocytes cultured on membranes, MACI, in gels, implantation of a stable three-dimensional de novo cartilage disk or even engineered osteochondral grafts, AMIC: autologous membrane induced chondrogenesis). A fair amount of today’s laboratory research is focusing on the culture of the patients own chondrocytes or his own stem cells. Clinically, some methods can be applied in all indications regardless of size, localisation, depth of the lesion up to the age of fifty years and this is valid for lesions in the knee, the shoulder, the talus, the elbow etc. Other methods like AOCT should not be used for lesions over 2cm in diameter because of donor side morbidity. All methods claim to have an 85% outcome success rate. Regarding the histological content of the successful implants or the reformed cartilage, microfracturing produces a cartilage implant containing a fibrocartilage that looks similar to the hyaline like cartilage of ACI at two years.
Many methods have been described over the past 5 years for repair of articular cartilage defects. The best reported results have been from the use of autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT)(1) and
Introduction: Osteochondral
Introduction: Adequate congruency and primary stability are vital for good long-term results after
Background. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and
Aims: To evaluate clinical and radiological results and to present variant of possible
This study was designed to see if using a plastic punch instead of a metal punch reduces the extent of chondrocyte damage in osteochondral mosaic plasty.
Images were interpreted using a graphics analysis programme.
Autologous osteochondral cylinder transfer is a treatment option for small articular defects, especially those arising from trauma or osteochondritis dissecans. There are concerns about graft integration and the nature of tissue forming the cartilage-cartilage bridge. Chondrocyte viability at graft and recipient edges is thought to be an important determinant of quality of repair. The aim was to evaluate cell viability at the graft edge from ex vivo human femoral condyles, after harvest using conventional technique. With ethical approval and patient consent, fresh human tissue was obtained at total knee arthroplasty. Osteochondral plugs were harvested using the commercially available Acufex 4.5mm diameter
The June 2012 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: ACI and
Aims: To compare
The parameters to be considered in the selection of a cartilage repair strategy are: the diameter of the chondral defect; the depth of the bone defect; the location of the defect (weight bearing); alignment. A chondral defect less than 3 cm in diameter can be managed by surface treatment such as microfracture, autologous chondrocyte transplantation,
Purpose: To evaluate repair of articular cartilage. Methods: Ten cases of ten knees (6 males and 4 females) were evaluated in the current study. Seven knees treated by osteochondral graft including six receiving mosaic plasty and one receiving Pasteurization. Four knees treated by periosteal graft. One knee received both
Purpose: To evaluate the insertion forces required to seat osteochondral plug grafts and the accuracy of plug harvest and seating using three unique instrumentation systems. Our hypothesis was that the systems would have different insertion forces. Method: The COR (Depuy-Mitek),
Articular defects in the knee can be managed by surface treatments, cartilage cell transplantation, periosteal grafts, osteochondral autografts, and osteochondral allografts. The factors, which determine the most appropriate treatment, are the size of the defect, and the associated bone loss. If there is an associated deformity, all of the aforementioned techniques would be combined with osteotomy. Chondral defects with no significant bone involvement can be managed arthroscopically by surface treatments like debridement and drilling, abrasion arthroplasty, and microfracture. Chondral defects can also be managed arthroscopically by osteochondral autografts (mosaicplasty) or by cartilage cell transplant or periosteal grafts, both of which are done by open surgery. The arthroscopic surface treatments are best reserved for small defects but cell transplantation and