uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Parameters identifying the risk of treatment failure after cartilage repair: a proposed treatment algorithm and pilot study
Vastmanlands Reg Hosp, Dept Orthopaed, Vasteras, Sweden.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Clinical Research, County of Västmanland. Vastmanlands Reg Hosp, Dept Orthopaed, Vasteras, Sweden;Univ Hosp Orebro, Dept Orthopaed, Orebro, Sweden.
Univ Hosp Orebro, Dept Orthopaed, Orebro, Sweden.
2019 (English)In: CURRENT ORTHOPAEDIC PRACTICE, ISSN 1940-7041, Vol. 30, no 4, p. 327-331Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Cartilage defects often are treated with different techniques depending on the surgeon's preferences and technical availability. A more systematic approach is therefore needed as a practical guide for surgeons regarding the choice of a suitable treatment for a particular patient. Methods: A retrospective descriptive study was done on 40 patients operated on with one of the following techniques: arthroscopic microfracture, periosteal transplantation and assisted matrix induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) technique. The average age of patients was 30.5 yr, with a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 54 yr. The average size of the injury was 2.67 cm(2), with a minimum of 1 cm(2) and a maximum of 6 cm(2). The distribution of the injuries was as follows: trochlea 22.5%, medial femoral condyle 45%, patella 30%, and lateral femoral condyle 2.5%. Results: The proportion of patients who were not satisfied was 21% after 1-year follow-up. The proportion of reoperated patients was 12.5%. The proportion of patients operated on previously was 12.5%. The proportion of patients with multiple chondral defects was 7.5%. Younger patients fared better. Conclusions: Microfracture as the primary technique led to the most failures, but because of its simplicity and balanced clinical results, it should be used as the gold standard, especially in younger patients. Open techniques, AMIC, and periosteal transplantation should be reserved as second choice treatments after failure and as a first choice treatment for multiple lesions, larger defects, older patients, and for defects such as osteochondritis dissecans where there is a need for autologous cancellous bone transplantation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2019. Vol. 30, no 4, p. 327-331
Keywords [en]
cartilage, repair, treatment, failures, algorithm
National Category
Orthopaedics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-390906DOI: 10.1097/BCO.0000000000000774ISI: 000474108600008OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-390906DiVA, id: diva2:1343896
Available from: 2019-08-19 Created: 2019-08-19 Last updated: 2019-08-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text
By organisation
Centre for Clinical Research, County of Västmanland
Orthopaedics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 2 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf