Patient-Reported Outcomes for Large Bipolar Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation in Combination with Realignment Osteotomies for the Knee

Short-Term Outcomes After Bipolar Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation (OCAT) in the Ankle

Treatment options for symptomatic cartilage loss in the ankle are not consistently effective. This study documents initial outcomes for patients undergoing bipolar OCAT in the ankle after advances in tissue preservation, transplantation techniques, and patient management strategies were implemented. Patients were prospectively enrolled into a registry designed to follow outcomes after OCAT in the ankle. Fourteen patients were included for analyses (12 primary OCAT, 2 revision OCAT). Four patients underwent Bipolar OCAT (tibia, talus) and 10 Bipolar+ OCAT (tibia, talus, fibula). Short-term (median follow-up 43, range 13-73 months) success was documented for 13 patients. Radiographic assessments indicated OCA integration and maintenance of joint space in 12 patients. Statistically significant (p < .030) and clinically meaningful improvements in AAOS and VAS pain scores were noted at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years following OCA transplantation when compared to preoperative measures. For patients that were nonadherent to postoperative restriction and rehabilitation protocols, all 1-year postoperative PROs were significantly lower (p < .050) than for patients who were adherent. The successful outcomes documented in 13 of 14 patients in conjunction with significant and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported measures of pain and function support OCA transplantation as an appropriate treatment option in indicated patients. These improvements in outcomes were associated with advances in OCA preservation, preimplantation treatment, transplantation techniques, and patient management strategies, suggesting this shift in practice be considered for OCA transplantation in the ankle.

Treatment failures (revision or arthroplasty) after knee osteochondral allograft transplantation with minimum two-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Knee osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCAT) has been associated with good short- to mid-term outcomes, however, treatment failures occur more frequently than desired. This study used data from a lifelong outcomes registry to analyze knee OCAT treatment failure rates, variables associated with knee OCAT treatment failures, and outcomes after revision or arthroplasty surgery for knee OCAT treatment failures.

METHODS

Patient outcomes were followed after knee OCAT performed using standard preservation (SP) or Missouri Osteochondral Preservation System (MOPS®) allografts. The study population consisted of patients undergoing primary OCAT with ≥ 2-year follow-up. For comparisons, the treatment failure population was defined by patients in the study population with documented treatment failure (revision or arthroplasty) with ≥ 2-year follow-up after failure. Functional graft survival was defined as no further need for revision surgery after primary or revision OCAT.

RESULTS

A total of 262 patients (n = 136 males; 51.9%) were analyzed. SP grafts were used for 59 cases and MOPS grafts were used for 203 cases. Treatment failure was documented in 61 cases (23.3%). MOPS grafts were 3.3 times more likely to be associated with functional graft survival. SP grafts, older patient age, higher BMI, tibiofemoral bipolar OCAT and non-adherence to the postoperative rehabilitation protocol were significantly associated with treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Knee OCAT resulted in functional graft survival at short- to mid-term follow-up in the majority (70-88%) of cases. In addition, revision of primary OCAT resulted in functional graft survival for at least 2 years after revision surgery in the majority (66%) of patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2, prospective cohort study.

Biological intra-articular augmentation for osteotomy in knee osteoarthritis: strategies and results : A systematic review of the literature from the ESSKA Orthobiologics Initiative

PURPOSE

To assess whether there is evidence supporting the use of augmentation strategies, either cartilage surgical procedures or injective orthobiologic options, to improve the results of osteotomies in knees with osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane databases in January 2023 on osteotomies around the knee associated with augmentation strategies (either cartilage surgical procedures or injective orthobiologic options), reporting clinical, radiological, or second-look/histological outcomes at any follow-up. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Coleman Methodology Score (CMS).

RESULTS

Out of the 7650 records identified from the databases, 42 articles were included for a total of 3580 patients and 3609 knees treated; 33 articles focused on surgical treatments and 9 on injective treatments performed in association with knee osteotomy. Out of the 17 comparative studies with surgical augmentation, only 1 showed a significant clinical benefit of an augmentation procedure with a regenerative approach. Overall, other studies showed no differences with reparative techniques and even detrimental outcomes with microfractures. Regarding injective procedures, viscosupplementation showed no improvement, while the use of platelet-rich plasma or cell-based products derived from both bone marrow and adipose tissue showed overall positive tissue changes which translated into a clinical benefit. The mean modified CMS score was 60.0 ± 12.1.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence to support the effectiveness of cartilage surgical treatments combined with osteotomies in terms of pain relief and functional recovery of patients affected by OA in misaligned joints. Orthobiologic injective treatments targeting the whole joint environment showed promising findings. However, overall the available literature presents a limited quality with only few heterogeneous studies investigating each treatment option. This ORBIT systematic analysis will help surgeons to choose their therapeutic strategy according to the available evidence, and to plan further and better studies to optimize biologic intra-articular osteotomy augmentation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Isolated Osteotomy Versus Combined Osteotomy and Cartilage Repair for Osteoarthritis or Focal Chondral Defects of the Medial Compartment of the Knee Joint: A Systematic Review

Background

The extent to which concomitant cartilage repair provides an improvement in clinical outcomes after osteotomy is unclear.

Purpose

To compare studies reporting clinical outcomes after isolated osteotomy with or without cartilage repair for osteoarthritis (OA) or focal chondral defects (FCDs) of the knee joint.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The search was done to identify comparative studies that directly compared outcomes between isolated osteotomy-high tibial osteotomy or distal femoral osteotomy-and osteotomy with concomitant cartilage repair for OA or FCDs of the knee joint. Patients were evaluated based on reoperation rate, magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score, macroscopic International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society score, and patient-reported outcomes.

Results

In total, 6 studies-level 2 evidence (n = 2);, level 3 evidence (n = 3);, and level 4 evidence (n = 1)-met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 228 patients undergoing osteotomy alone (group A) and 255 patients undergoing osteotomy with concomitant cartilage repair (group B). The mean patient age was 53.4 and 54.8 years, respectively, and the mean preoperative alignment was 6.6° and 6.7° of varus in groups A and B, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 71.5 months. All studies assessed medial compartment lesions with varus deformity. One study compared osteotomy alone for patients with medial compartment OA versus osteotomy with autologous chondrocyte implantation for patients with FCDs of the medial compartment. Three other studies included a heterogeneous cohort of patients with OA and FCDs in both groups. Only 1 study isolated its comparison to patients with medial compartment OA and 1 study isolated its comparison to patients with FCDs.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence with substantial heterogeneity between studies on clinical outcomes after osteotomy alone versus osteotomy with cartilage repair for OA or FCDs of the knee joint. At this time, no conclusion can be made regarding the role of additional cartilage procedures in treating medial compartment OA or FCDs. Further studies are needed that isolate specific disease pathology and specific cartilage procedures.

Initial Outcomes After Unicompartmental Tibiofemoral Bipolar Osteochondral and Meniscal Allograft Transplantation in the Knee Using MOPS-Preserved Fresh (Viable) Tissues

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental tibiofemoral bipolar osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCAT) with meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has not historically been associated with consistently successful outcomes for treatment of knee articular cartilage defects with meniscal deficiency.

HYPOTHESIS

Primary OCAT and MAT using fresh tissues will be associated with successful short-term outcomes based on statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain and function in the majority of patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients were prospectively enrolled into a registry for outcomes after OCAT and MAT. Patients included those who underwent primary OCAT and MAT using Missouri Osteochondral Preservation System (MOPS)-preserved allografts for treatment of large bipolar tibiofemoral articular cartilage defects with meniscal deficiency and had a minimum of 2-year follow-up data.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients (n = 52 male; 68%) met inclusion criteria (mean follow-up, 52 months). The mean age was 41.1 years (range, 15-69 years), and the mean body mass index was 28.9 (range, 17-46); 48 patients underwent another OCAT in addition to the unicompartmental bipolar tibiofemoral OCAT and MAT; 23 patients (30.3%) were documented to be nonadherent to the prescribed postoperative restriction and rehabilitation protocol. The initial success rate (>2 years) was 77.6%, with 8 patients (10.5%) undergoing revision and 9 (11.8%) converting to arthroplasty. Variables associated with an increased risk for treatment failure (revision or arthroplasty) included ipsilateral osteotomy (P = .046; odds ratio [OR] = 3.3), ipsilateral concurrent procedure (P = .0057; OR = 5.5), and nonadherence (P = .0009; OR = 7.2). None of the patients undergoing revision surgery required arthroplasty at the time of data analysis such that the overall success rate for primary and revision unicompartmental bipolar OCA plus MAT was 88.2%. There were statistically significant (P < .0001) and clinically important improvements for all patient-reported outcomes at each annual follow-up time point.

CONCLUSION

Unicompartmental tibiofemoral bipolar OCAT and MAT can result in successful short-term outcomes (2-6 years) and satisfaction in the majority of patients (78%). Primary MOPS-preserved OCAT with MAT for treatment of femoral condyle and tibial plateau articular cartilage defects with concurrent meniscal deficiency was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported measures of pain and function.

Early Postoperative CT Scan Provides Prognostic Data on Clinical Outcomes of Fresh Osteochondral Transplantation of the Knee

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of information regarding the ability of imaging studies to predict clinical outcomes after fresh osteochondral allograft (FOCA) transplantation of the knee.

PURPOSE

To determine the value of computed tomography (CT) scans to predict the clinical outcome of FOCA transplantation using the assessment computed tomography osteochondral allograft (ACTOCA) score.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from all consecutive patients who underwent FOCA transplantation for osteochondral knee lesions at one institution between August 2017 and August 2019. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. CT scans performed 6 months after surgery were evaluated by a musculoskeletal radiologist using the ACTOCA scoring system. The radiologist was blinded to the patient's medical history. Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at 12 and 30 months postoperatively using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Kujala score, the Tegner activity scale, and the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) score.

RESULTS

A total of 38 cases were included. The ACTOCA score at 6 months after surgery showed a statistically significant correlation with clinical results at 12 and 30 months. The correlation was better at 30 months, showing a high negative correlation with the IKDC score (-0.663) and a moderate negative correlation with the Kujala, WOMET, and Tegner scores (-0.593; -0.547, and -0.593, respectively) (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A statistically significant correlation between the mean ACTOCA score on CT scans at 6 months and the clinical results measured by the IKDC, Kujala, WOMET, and Tegner scores at 30 months confirmed the predictive value of the ACTOCA score for use in clinical practice.

Inconsistent Reporting of Preauthorization Medical Criteria for Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation Surgery

BACKGROUND

Although osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation has been a standard treatment for patients with osteochondral lesions, there is a disagreement in commercial payers' medical criteria regarding the definition of medical suitability and thus authorization for OCA transplantation. The primary goal of this study was to understand where consensus between a committee of experienced cartilage restoration surgeon scientists and payer policies existed and where there was significant disagreement.

METHODS

U.S. private payers were identified by reviewing health insurance market research literature. Medical criteria were then obtained from publicly available payer medical polices. A literature review was conducted to identify supporting evidence for consensus statements based on private payer medical criteria. The MOCA (Metrics of Osteochondral Allograft) Committee, 30 experienced surgeons and subject-matter experts in OCA transplantation, used a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to rank each statement. The extent of agreement and disagreement among participants was measured for each statement. Consensus was defined as agreement or disagreement of >75%.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven statements regarding relevant medical criteria for OCA transplantation were included in the survey. All 30 MOCA Committee members completed the survey (100% response rate). Over half of the statements (52.6%) did not reach consensus. Of the remaining 27 statements that reached consensus, respondents agreed or strongly agreed with 16 statements, and disagreed or strongly disagreed with 11 statements. Inconsistent voting was observed for statements related to osteoarthritis, inflammation, and degenerative changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Commercial payers are not consistent in the medical criteria used to define patient eligibility for authorization of OCA transplantation. In contrast, an expert panel of cartilage surgeons reached a consensus that OCA transplantation was clearly suitable for a variety of specific indications. This study demonstrates the need to standardize medical criteria for cartilage restoration based on the most current literature, as well as in conjunction with experienced cartilage restoration experts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level V . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Return to Sport and Work after Randomization for Knee Distraction versus High Tibial Osteotomy: Is There a Difference?

Knee joint distraction (KJD) is a novel technique for relatively young knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. With KJD, an external distraction device creates temporary total absence of contact between cartilage surfaces, which results in pain relief and possibly limits the progression of knee OA. Recently, KJD showed similar clinical outcomes compared with high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Yet, no comparative data exist regarding return to sport (RTS) and return to work (RTW) after KJD. Therefore, our aim was to compare RTS and RTW between KJD and HTO. We performed a cross-sectional follow-up study in patients <65 years who previously participated in a randomized controlled trial comparing KJD and HTO. Out of 62 eligible patients, 55 patients responded and 51 completed the questionnaire (16 KJDs and 35 HTOs) at 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome measures were the percentages of RTS and RTW. Secondary outcome measures included time to RTS/RTW, and pre- and postoperative Tegner's (higher is more active), and Work Osteoarthritis or Joint-Replacement Questionnaire (WORQ) scores (higher is better work ability). Patients' baseline characteristics did not differ. Total 1 year after KJD, 79% returned to sport versus 80% after HTO (not significant [n.s.]). RTS <6 months was 73 and 75%, respectively (n.s.). RTW 1 year after KJD was 94 versus 97% after HTO (n.s.), and 91 versus 87% <6 months (n.s.). The median Tegner's score decreased from 5.0 to 3.5 after KJD, and from 5.0 to 3.0 after HTO (n.s.). The mean WORQ score improvement was higher after HTO (16 ± 16) than after KJD (6 ± 13; p = 0.04). Thus, no differences were found for sport and work participation between KJD and HTO in our small, though first ever, cohort. Overall, these findings may support further investigation into KJD as a possible joint-preserving option for challenging "young" knee OA patients. The level of evidence is III.

Biologic Joint Restoration: A Translational Research Success Story

Treatment options that result in consistently successful outcomes for young and active patients with joint disorders are needed. This article summarizes two decades of rigorous research using a bedside-to-bench- to-bedside translational approach based on the One Health - One Medicine concept that culminated in successful clinical use of biologic joint restoration options for treatment of knee, hip, ankle, and shoulder problems in this growing patient population.

Diagnosis and Management of Articular Cartilage and Meniscus Pathology in the Posterior Cruciate Ligament-Injured Knee

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries commonly occur in association with participation in sporting or recreational activities or due to a direct trauma. Cartilage and meniscal lesions are prevalent in PCL-injured knees with increasing likelihood and severity based on extent and duration of trauma to the knee. As such, comprehensive diagnostics should be performed to ascertain all related pathology, and patients should be thoroughly educated regarding treatment options, likely sequelae including posttraumatic osteoarthritis, and associated outcomes. Treatments should address the joint as an organ, ensuring stability, alignment, and functional tissue restoration are optimized by the most efficient and effective means possible. Compliance with patient- and procedure-specific postoperative management protocols is critical for optimizing successful outcomes for these complex cases. The objectives of this review article are to highlight the likelihood and importance of osteochondral and meniscal pathology in the PCL-injured knee, and to provide the best current evidence regarding comprehensive evaluation and management for PCL-injured knees with cartilage and/or meniscal comorbidities.

Postoperative Management for Articular Cartilage Surgery in the Knee

The postoperative rehabilitation team plays a crucial role in optimizing outcomes after articular cartilage surgery. A comprehensive approach to postoperative physical therapy that considers the type of surgery, location in the knee, concurrent procedures, and patient-specific factors is imperative. While postoperative rehabilitation protocols should be specific to the patient and type of surgery performed and include phased rehabilitation goals and activities, the key principles for postoperative rehabilitation apply across the spectrum of articular cartilage surgeries and patients. These key principles consist of preoperative assessments that include physical, mental, and behavioral components critical to recovery; education and counseling with respect to expectations and compliance; and careful monitoring and adjustments throughout the rehabilitation period based on consistent communication among rehabilitation, surgical, and imaging teams to ensure strict patient compliance with restrictions, activities, and timelines to optimize functional outcomes after surgery.