Long-term outcome of grade III and IV chondral injuries of the knee treated with Steadman microfracture technique

A Prospective Cohort Study on Quality of Life among the Pediatric Population after Surgery for Recurrent Patellar Dislocation

Patellofemoral instability is a frequent cause of knee pathology affecting quality of life among the pediatric population. Here, we present a prospective cohort study which included patients who had undergone surgical management using the lateral release and medial imbrication approach (LRMI) or medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFL-R). The object of this study was to assess the quality of life among children that have undergone surgical treatment for patellar dislocation. Quality of life was assessed before and after surgery using the Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee form (Pedi-IKDC), a questionnaire that aims to quantify knee functionality. Postoperative scarring was evaluated using The Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale. One hundred and eight patients were selected and grouped according to the type of procedure. Before surgery, the two groups had similar mean Pedi-IKDC scores (41,4 MPFL-R vs. 39,4 LRMI p = 0.314). Improvements were observed in the postoperative scores. The MPFL-R technique showed promising outcomes. When comparing the two surgical groups, there was a significant difference in favor of MPFL-R group (MPFL-R 77.71 points vs. LRMI 59.74 points, p < 0.0001-95% CI (11.22-24.72)). Using the Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale, a significant difference in scar quality in favor of MPFL-R was observed (4,5 MPFL-R vs. 2,77 LRMI p = 0.002). In conclusion, this study provides objective evidence-based outcome assessments that support the medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction technique as the gold standard for patellofemoral instability.

Arthroscopic Repair in Tibial Spine Avulsion Fractures Using Polyethylene Terephthalate Suture: Good to Excellent Results in Pediatric Patients

Background: The objective of the arthroscopic treatment in tibial spine avulsion fractures (TSAF) is to achieve firm reduction and strong internal fixation while still having the patient undergo a minimally invasive procedure. Material and methods: The study was performed on 12 young patients with avulsion fracture of the anterior tibial spine. All 12 patients had type 3 Modified Meyers and McKeever fractures. The injury mechanism was direct anterior to posterior trauma in full leg length hyperextension with sport trauma reported in all cases. The physical examination revealed decreased range of motion, extension deficit, and pain during walking. Radiology, MRI, and CT pathologic findings described complete fracture of the anterior tibial spine with no clear signs of callus formation at the time of examination. All patients underwent arthroscopic suture surgical treatment. The Tegner, the Lysholm, and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were used to evaluate subjective outcomes at three and six months after the surgery. Radiographs were used to assess callus formation and healing status of the fracture. Results: The mean IKDC score was 33.4 ± 23.3 (p = 0.032) preoperatively and 84.2 ± 14.3 at final follow-up (p = 0.0032, CI = 95%). The mean Tegner score improved from 3.8 ± 1.1 pre-operatively to 6.7 ± 2.2 at six months follow-up (p = 0.0231, CI = 95%). The Lysholm score differed significantly at baseline compared to final follow-up (53.7 ± 17.3 vs. 87.7 ± 9.9; p = 0.0066, CI = 95%). In all cases (n = 12), the radiographs taken after six months revealed the healing of the fracture in the anatomic position without secondary displacement. No functional knee instability was detected at the end of the study. Conclusions: The study provides preliminary promising results regarding fracture healing, knee stability, and functional subjective scores. Patient selection was a major factor of success prediction for this technique.

Wide Variation in Methodology in Level I and II Studies on Cartilage Repair: A Systematic Review of Available Clinical Trials Comparing Patient Demographics, Treatment Means, and Outcomes Reporting

BACKGROUND

The management of complex cartilage pathology in young, otherwise healthy patients can be difficult.

PURPOSE

To determine the nature of the design, endpoints chosen, and rate at which the endpoints were met in published studies and ongoing clinical trials that investigate cartilage repair and restoration procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review of the publicly available level I/II literature and of the publicly listed clinical trials regarding cartilage repair and restoration procedures for the knee was conducted adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Seventeen published studies and 52 clinical trials were included. Within the 17 published studies, the most common procedure studied was microfracture (MFX) + augmentation (N = 5; 29.4%) and the most common comparison/control group was MFX (N = 10; 58.8%). In total, 13 different cartilage procedure groups were evaluated. For published studies, the most common patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures assessed is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Visual Analog Scale-Pain (VAS) (N = 10 studies, 58.8% each, respectively). Overall, there are 10 different PROs used among the included studies. Ten studies demonstrate superiority, 5 demonstrate noninferiority, and 2 demonstrate inferiority to the comparison or control groups. For the clinical trials included, the most common procedure studied is MFX + augmentation (N = 16; 30.8%). The most common PRO assessed is KOOS (N = 36 trials; 69.2%), and overall there are 24 different PROs used among the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Recently published studies and clinical trials evaluate a variety of cartilage repair and restoration strategies for the knee, most commonly MFX + augmentation, at various time points of outcome evaluation, with KOOS and VAS scores being used most commonly. MFX remains the most common comparison group for these therapeutic investigations. Most studies demonstrate superiority versus comparison or control groups. Understanding the nature of published and ongoing clinical trials will be helpful in the investigation of emerging technologies required to navigate the regulatory process while studying a relatively narrow population of patients.

[Cartilage repair of the knee joint]

BACKGROUND

Cartilage defects around the knee joint frequently occur in the region of the medial femoral condyle and the retropatellar cartilage surface. The distinction between local cartilage defects and large area degenerative cartilage lesions is very important for both prognosis and surgical therapy. The size and position of the lesion, the underlying pathomechanism and the age of the patient are very important factors which should be considered in the therapy algorithm for optimal cartilage defect restoration. Important cofactors such as stability, long leg axis and muscle balance should be taken into account.

AIM

Current procedures for cartilage repair of the knee joint and their results are summarized in this article. In addition, the necessity of precise and comprehensive preoperative clinical and radiological diagnostics is displayed to be able to treat co-pathologies in order to enable a successful repair of the cartilage defect.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative planning of cartilage-repair techniques usually includes x‑ray images and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination. If MRI is not available, an arthro-computed tomography could be an alternative. Modern and routinely used procedures for cartilage repair at the knee joint are microfracture, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, autologous chondrocyte transplantation, matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation and osteochondral transplantation. Successful surgical cartilage-repair surgeries require a correct and individualized indication, addressing of copathologies and a standardized rehabilitation that is adapted to the surgical procedure. Evidence-based criteria for an exact time point for the return to sports according to individually operative cartilage repair techniques currently do not exist.