HemiCAP Knee Implants: Mid- to Long-Term Results

Surgical Treatment of Focal Chondral Lesions of the Knee in the Military Population: Current and Future Therapies

INTRODUCTION

Chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee are common injuries in the military population that have a significant impact on readiness. Definitive treatment of these injuries is challenging since cartilage has a limited capacity for self-repair and regeneration. Management is particularly challenging in military patients who maintain a higher level of activity similar to athletes. Existing surgical techniques have variable results and often long recovery times, sparking the development of several new innovative technologies to return service members back to duty more quickly and effectively after cartilage injury. The purpose of this article is to review the current and future surgical treatments for chondral and osteochondral knee lesions and their relevance in managing these injuries in the military.

METHODS

In this review article, we describe the current treatments for chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee, reporting on outcomes in military populations. We explore emerging treatment modalities for cartilage defects, reporting innovations, stage of research, and current data. Published results of each treatment option in military populations are reviewed throughout the article.

RESULTS

This review includes 12 treatments for chondral lesions. Of these therapies, four are considered synthetic and the remaining are considered regenerative solutions. Regenerative therapies tend to perform better in younger, healthier populations with robust healing capacity. Success of treatment depends on lesions and patient characteristics. Nearly all modalities currently available in the USA were successful in improving patients from presurgical function in the short (<6 months) term, but the long-term efficacy is still challenged. Upcoming technologies show promising results in clinical and animal studies that may provide alternative options desirable for the military population.

CONCLUSIONS

The current treatment options for cartilage lesions are not entirely satisfactory, usually with long recovery times and mixed results. An ideal therapy would be a single procedure that possesses the ability to enable a quick return to activity and duty, alleviate pain, provide long-term durability, and disrupt the progression of osteoarthritis. Evolving technologies for cartilage lesions are expanding beyond currently available techniques that may revolutionize the future of cartilage repair.

Clinical evaluation of a resurfacing device implant for femoral osteochondral defects greater than 1 cm2 with a minimal follow-up of 4 years: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Osteochondral defects have a limited capacity to heal and can evolve to an early osteoarthritis. A surgical possibility is the replacement of the affected cartilaginous area with a resurfacing device BioPoly™ RS Partial Resurfacing Knee Implant. The aim of this study was to report the clinical and survival outcomes of the BioPoly™ after a minimum follow-up of 4 years.

METHODS

This study included all patients who had a BioPoly™ for femoral osteochondral defects greater than 1 cm2 and at least ICRS grade 2. The main outcome was to observe the KOOS and the Tegner activity score were used to assess outcomes preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the VAS for pain, the complications rate post-surgery and survival rate of BioPoly™ at the last FU.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients with 44.4% (8/18) of women were included with a mean age of 46.6 years (11.4), a mean body mass index (BMI) of 21.5 (kg/m2) (2.3). The mean follow-up was 6.3 years (1.3). We found a significant difference comparing pre-operative KOOS score and at last follow-up [respectively, 66.56(14.37) vs 84.17(7.656), p < 0.01]. At last follow-up, the Tegner score was different [respectively, 3.05(1.3) vs 3.6(1.3), p < 0.01]. At 5 years, the survival rate was of 94.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

BioPoly™ is a real alternative for femoral osteochondral defects greater than 1 cm2 and at least ICRS grade 2. It will be interesting to compare this implant to mosaicplasty technic and/or microfracture at 5 years postoperatively regarding clinical outcomes and survival rate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level III. Prospective cohort study.

Revision of inlay resurfacing prosthesis with patellar realignment surgery and a new inlay prosthesis for persistent patellofemoral pain und patella subluxation

We present the case of a 35-year-old patient who underwent inlay patellofemoral arthroplasty (I-PFA) followed by secondary patellar realignment surgery and inlay-to-inlay revision. Revision was performed because of ongoing pain, crepitation, and lateral subluxation of the patella. The original patella component (30-mm button) was replaced with a 35-mm dome, while the Hemi-Cap Wave® (7 × 5 mm) I-PFA was replaced with the Hemi-Cap Kahuna® (10 × 5 mm). At the 1-year follow-up, the clinical symptoms were resolved. Radiography revealed an aligned patellofemoral compartment with no signs of loosening. Inlay-to-inlay PFA revision appears to be a reasonable alternative to total knee arthroplasty and conversion to onlay-PFA (O-PFA) for symptomatic patients with primary I-PFA failure. Thorough patellofemoral evaluation and appropriate patient and implant selection are key for successful I-PFA, while additional procedures for patellar realignment may also be required for satisfactory long-term outcomes.

High degree of consensus amongst an expert panel regarding focal resurfacing of chondral and osteochondral lesions of the femur with mini-implants

INTRODUCTION

The rationale for the use of mini-implants for partial resurfacing in the treatment of femoral chondral and osteochondral lesions is still under debate. The evidence supporting best practise guidelines is based on studies with low-level evidence. A consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance towards consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence. The purpose of this article is to report the resulting consensus statements.

METHODS

Twenty-five experts participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Questions and statements were drafted via an online survey of two rounds, for initial agreement and comments on the proposed statements. An in-person meeting between the panellists was organised during the 2022 ESSKA congress to further discuss and debate each of the statements. A final agreement was made via a final online survey a few days later. The strength of consensus was characterised as: consensus, 51-74% agreement; strong consensus, 75-99% agreement; unanimous, 100% agreement.

RESULTS

Statements were developed in the fields of patient assessment and indications, surgical considerations and postoperative care. Between the 25 statements that were discussed by this working group, 18 achieved unanimous, whilst 7 strong consensus.

CONCLUSION

The consensus statements, derived from experts in the field, represent guidelines to assist clinicians in decision-making for the appropriate use of mini-implants for partial resurfacing in the treatment of femoral chondral and osteochondral lesions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Individualized metal implants for focal cartilage lesions in the knee can be cost-effective: A simulation on 47-year-old in a Swedish setting

OBJECTIVES

In the aging population, the knee is the joint most commonly causing impaired function and incapacity. While definite treatment by prosthetic replacement is often performed late, symptomatic knee cartilage lesions cause much suffering also in younger ages. Early intervention could, therefore, be instituted at an early stage to the benefit of both patients and society. Small, metal surface, resurfacing implants have been tested with promising results. A system that features patient-specific implants and surgical instruments shows good clinical results and favorable survival rates. This study aims to assess the cost utility of this metal device compared with microfracture (MFX), being the standard procedure in Sweden.

METHODS

We constructed a simulation model in Excel. In the model, a cohort of 47-year-old patients (which is the mean age of patients treated with the metal implant) with symptomatic knee cartilage lesions received either MFX or metal implantation. Outcomes for the cohort were simulated over 40 years, such as in a previously published model based on MFX, and sensitivity analyses (deterministic and probabilistic) of the results were undertaken. Data on transition probabilities, costs, and quality of life were taken from clinical data, published literature, and official price lists. Only direct medical costs were included.

RESULTS

Results from the analysis showed that the metal device is a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with MFX. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) reached acceptable levels at ∼5 years postoperatively. Over the full-time horizon of 40 years, the metal device was cost saving with concomitant gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), translating to a dominant treatment strategy. Results were robust according to sensitivity analysis with the initial success rate of up to three years for both metal and MFX having the largest impact.

CONCLUSIONS

A metal implant may be a cost-effective treatment alternative for patients in their 40's when compared to MFX in a Swedish setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5 [1].

Femoral condyle resurfacing using an inlay metal implant: low revision rate of 266 patients in a 5-10 years follow-up

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical outcome and survival of an inlay resurfacing prosthesis for focal femoral condyle chondral and osteochondral defects.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-six patients (mean age, 38.25 years; range 25-56 years) with symptomatic femoral condyle chondral and osteochondral defects were reviewed. The mean follow-up period was 7.3 years (range 5-10 years). The medial femoral condyle was involved in 229 and the lateral condyle in 37 patients. Previous cartilage surgery was done in 235 patients. All patients were treated with focal femoral condyle resurfacing with the HemiCAP^® device. The preoperative and the last follow-up values of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were examined. Complications, reoperation rate and survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

At the last follow-up, all clinical score values showed significant improvement as compared with the corresponding preoperative values (p < 0.001). Age presented a negative correlation with KOOS (p = 0.03) and SF-36 improvement (p = 0.014). Kellgren-Lawrence grade influenced OKS (p = 0.036). BMI, gender, side, medial or lateral condyle and size did not affect the outcome. Patients who had previous biological cartilage procedures demonstrated better clinical improvement in comparison with those that did not have prior surgery (p < 0.05). Survival was 96.2% at 10 years, using as endpoint implant revision or/and progression of osteoarthritis. The cumulative hazard for any-reason reoperation was 12.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Femoral condyle resurfacing using the HemiCAP^® device is an effective treatment option to address focal chondral and osteochondral defects. It can be successfully used either as a primary procedure or after prior biological cartilage reconstruction. Subjective clinical outcomes are expected to be good to excellent in mid- to long term, while reoperation and revision rates are low. Progression of osteoarthritis is the most common mode of failure; thus, patient selection is very important.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

The lack of retropatellar resurfacing at index surgery is significantly associated with failure in patients following patellofemoral inlay arthroplasty: a multi-center study of more than 260 patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up following contemporary patellofemoral inlay arthroplasty (PFIA) and to identify potential risk factors for failure in a multi-center study.

METHODS

All patients who underwent implantation of PFIA between 09/2009 and 11/2016 at 11 specialized orthopedic referral centers were enrolled in the study and were evaluated retrospectively at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Tegner Scale, the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, and subjective patient satisfaction. Pre- and perioperative risk factors were compared among failures and non-failures to determine potential risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 263 patients (85% follow-up rate) could be enrolled. The mean age at the time of index surgery was 49 ± 12 years with a mean postoperative follow-up of 45 ± 18 months. The overall failure rate was 11% (28 patients), of which 18% (5 patients) were patients with patella resurfacing at index surgery and 82% (23 patients) were patients without initial patella resurfacing. At final follow-up, 93% of the patients who did not fail were satisfied with the procedure with a mean transformed WOMAC Score of 84.5 ± 14.5 points, a mean KOOS Score of 73.3 ± 17.1 points, a mean Tegner Score of 3.4 ± 1.4 points and a mean VAS pain of 2.4 ± 2.0 points. An increased BMI was significantly correlated with a worse postoperative outcome. Concomitant procedures addressing patellofemoral instability or malalignment, the lack of patellofemoral resurfacing at the index surgery and a high BMI were significantly correlated with failure in our patient cohort.

CONCLUSION

Patellofemoral inlay arthroplasty shows high patient satisfaction with good functional outcomes at short-term follow-up and thus can be considered a viable treatment option in young patients suffering from isolated patellofemoral arthritis. Patellar resurfacing at index surgery is recommended to decrease the risk of failure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Eighty Percent Survival of Resurfacing Implants in the Knee After 10 Years: A Nationwide Cohort Study on 379 Procedures from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry

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.

[Focal femoral resurfacing and unicompartmental knee replacement : Between osteotomy and total knee replacement]

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, especially for both femorotibial compartments of the knee, is an established partly joint-saving treatment option for osteoarthritis of the knee if the disease is limited to one compartment. Even smaller implants or resurfacing of the patellofemoral joint have been shown-in smaller patient collectives-to have the potential to yield good clinical results.

A longterm prospective follow-up study of resurfacing miniprosthesis suitable for patients above sixtyfive years with localized cartilage lesions or early osteoarthritis in the knee

Purpose

The aim of the study was to investigate the long-term outcomes of the Focal Femoral Condyle Resurfacing Prosthesis for treatment of localized cartilage lesion in patients > 65 years.

Methods

This was a prospective case series study. Non-reopererated patients initially treated with resurfacing condylar miniprothesis (HemiCAP/UniCAP) were evaluated clinically and radiographically at 7–10 years follow-up (mean 9 years). The clinical examination included the Knee Society Score (KSS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score and EQ5D. The radiographic examination included the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade for investigate of OA progression. A comparison analysis of the preoperative and follow-up subjective outcome data and a Kaplan-Meier implant survival analysis were performed.

Results

Twenty-three patients were included in the study (9 HemiCAP and 14 UniCAP). There were seven revisions (one HemiCap and six UniCap respectively) (30%) and three patients had died. Follow-up examinations were performed on 10 patients. When comparing follow-up with the preoperative state, there were significant increases in the KSS objective (50.0 ± 8.3) vs. 90.0 ± 6.3)) and KSS function (45.0 ± 11.7) vs. 85.0 ± 4.7)) scores, a decrease in the pain VAS score (7.0 ± 0.9) vs. (4.0 ± 1.9)). Radiographic evaluation demonstrated increase in osteoarthritis development with a KL medial score (2.0 ± 0.6) and KL lateral score (1.4 ± 0.6) vs. (2.0 ± 0.9)).The EQ5D-score was 86 ± 8.4 and patients Health-score was 85 ± 18).

Conclusions

Resurfacing implant treatment for early OA in patients above 65 years can require revision to knee arthroplasty in 30% of patients. But in patients that are not revised long-term improvements in subjective clinical outcome was demonstrated. This suggests that even elderly patients with isolated cartilage lesions or early OA might benefit from the limited invasive resurfacing implant treatment.

Level of evidence

IV