Next Article in Journal
Thromboembolic Complications in Covid-19: From Clinical Scenario to Laboratory Evidence
Next Article in Special Issue
Reconstruction of Large Osteochondral Lesions in the Knee: Focus on Fixation Techniques
Previous Article in Journal
Neurosurgical CSF Diversion in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Isolated Arthroscopic Lateral Retinacular Release for Lateral Patellar Compression Syndrome
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/life11050394
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Treatment of Unicompartmental Cartilage Defects of the Knee with Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty, Patellofemoral Partial Knee Arthroplasty or Focal Resurfacing

by
Bernhard Springer
1 and
Friedrich Boettner
2,*
1
Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18–20, 1090 Vienna, Austria
2
Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Division, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E 70th Street, New York, NY 10021, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2021, 11(5), 394; https://doi.org/10.3390/life11050394
Submission received: 31 March 2021 / Revised: 23 April 2021 / Accepted: 25 April 2021 / Published: 27 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Focal Chondral Defects)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Focal chondral defects are common lesions of the articular cartilage. They are predominantly found on the medial femoral condyle and often progress to osteoarthritis of the knee. Various conservative treatment options are available. The conservative treatment might reduce pain and delay the progress of degenerative processes. However, restoration of the articular cartilage cannot be accomplished. If the conservative treatment fails unicompartmental arthroplasty, patellofemoral joint replacement or focal resurfacing are reasonable options to postpone total knee arthroplasty. A careful patient selection before surgery is crucial for all three treatment options. The following overview reports indications and outcomes of medial partial knee replacement, patellofemoral partial knee replacement, and focal resurfacing treatment options for focal chondral defects.

1. Introduction

Focal chondral defects (FCD) are common disruptions of the continuity of the cartilage layers. They might occur on every articular cartilage surface of the body; however, chondral defects are predominantly found on the medial femoral condyle [1,2]. Focal chondral defects of the hip predominately occur as a result of trauma or in patients with hip dysplasia or femoroacetabular impingement [3,4]. However, generally FCD of the hip are rare. The current literature hardly provides any outcome data following cartilage repair of FCD of the hip joint. The arthroscopic access to these defects is difficult and open procedures are associated with a significant morbidity [5]. As a result, surgical intervention is hardly ever attempted for FCD of the hip. Several treatment options are available for FCD of the talus. For younger patients with isolated localized defects and without ankle deformity, biological repair techniques are the preferred therapy options [6]. Isolated symptomatic defects of the talus in middle-aged patients are difficult to treat, as patients might neither be suitable for biological repair treatments nor for replacement/fusion surgeries [7].
Due to low vascular and neural supply of articular cartilage, the regenerative potential of FCD is limited [8,9]. Most cartilage lesions do not result in clinical symptoms [10]. Patients that present with clinical symptoms most often complain of joint effusions, joint pain or loss of flexibility. However, the majority of patients with clinical symptoms describe an unspecific knee pain. Frank et al. [11] reported more severe clinical symptoms when the defect was located in the weight-bearing zone of the knee.
Previous studies have shown that FCD are an important risk factor for an early onset of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and, therefore, early detection is crucial [12,13,14,15]. Cicuttini et al. [16] showed that even asymptomatic middle-age patients with small defects of mild severity had large reductions of the cartilage volume in the medial and lateral compartment of the knee.
Various treatment options are available for FCD; however, it is unclear which treatment has the best potential to restore a functional articular-cartilage-like tissue [10]. Factors that should be taken into consideration include: defect size, defect location, defect depth, mechanical knee alignment and knee stability, as well as patient demand [17]. In addition, patient-specific systemic factors, including age, activity level, body mass index (BMI), and sex need to be considered [18].
Non-operative treatment options aim at the reduction of clinical symptoms and the delay of progression of the degenerative processes [10]. They include physical therapy, rest during the acute injury phase, ice, weight reduction, unloader braces, muscle strengthening or anti-inflammatory medication. If pain relief is not achieved with these options, intraarticular corticosteroid injections, injection of hyaluronate derivates or other available bioactive injectables might be considered as a temporary solution before indicating surgical interventions [19,20]. Non-operative treatments, however, can only reduce pain, but restoration of articular cartilage cannot be accomplished [17].
Focal chondral defects International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade 3 or 4 should be addressed surgically [21]. For smaller defects (<2–4 cm2) in patients <40 years various surgical treatment options such as local debridement, chondroplasty, marrow stimulation techniques (e.g., microfracture, drilling) or osteochondral autograft/allograft transfers are reasonable treatment options [22,23]. In young patients with defects >2.5 cm2 autologous chondrocyte transplantation is the preferred treatment option, as promising long-term results were achieved in cases with larger defects [24,25]. Gilat et al. [26] showed significantly improved clinical results after osteochondral allograft transplantation in larger FCD of the femoral condyles with 5-year survival rates of 86.2% and 10-year survival rates of 81.8%, respectively. Another randomized study compared microfracture with autologous chondrocyte implantation and found that one third of patients in both groups had radiographic evidence of OA of the knee at the 5-year follow up [27]. Especially, tibial FCD and concomitant lesions of the meniscus are prognostic factors for accelerated progression of the OA of the knee [28]. Kreuz et al. [29] showed that 18 months after microfracture treatment a deterioration begins, which is significantly worse in patients over 40 years of age. Higher failure rates were also found in patients ≥40 years after osteochondral allograft transplantation [30].
In up to 47% of patients over 60 years of age, FCD progresses to diffuse OA of the knee [31,32]. For these particular patients, partial or total joint arthroplasty is usually the re-commended treatment option [22].
The following overview reports indications and outcomes of medial partial knee replacement, patellofemoral partial knee replacement, and focal resurfacing treatment options for focal chondral defects.

2. Focal Chondral Defects and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

2.1. Indications for Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Indications and contraindications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are discussed controversially [33]. To achieve good long-term results, an adequate patient selection and careful preoperative evaluation is crucial [34,35].
In 1989, Kozinn and Scott [36] presented a selection criteria for medial UKA. They suggested performing medial UKA only in patients who are:
  • over 60 years old;
  • weigh less than 82 kg;
  • have isolated medial compartment OA;
  • have no patellofemoral OA;
  • no lateral joint tenderness;
  • no anterior knee pain;
  • low physical demands;
  • a varus deformity of under 10°;
  • a flexion contracture of under 5°;
  • intact ligaments and no inflammatory conditions.
Up to today, many surgeons stick to these suggested selection criteria [37]. Over the last 30 years, indications for medial UKA were extended based on published evidence. Even if the primary indication for medial UKA is still end-stage anteromedial OA of the knee [38], it also became a reasonable treatment option for other pathologies such as avascular osteonecrosis [39].
Full thickness cartilage defects in the weight-bearing zone of the medial compartment of the knee are a requirement for medial UKA [36,40] and patients with lateral OA of the knee should not be scheduled for medial UKA [41]. However, previous studies have shown that the presence of lateral osteophytes is not associated with more-advanced histological cartilage degeneration, lower cartilage volume, biomechanically weaker cartilage or diminished cartilage thickness in the lateral compartment [42,43]. Therefore, lateral osteophytes should not be considered as a contraindication for medial UKA.
Intact cartilage in the lateral compartment is another essential requirement for medial UKA and the progression of lateral OA is a common cause for failure of medial UKA [40]. A previous study evaluated the impact of white blood cell (WBC) count in the synovial fluid on biomechanical cartilage properties [44]. They found that the cartilage quality in the lateral compartment was worse in knees with an elevated WBC count compared to knees with a low WBC count.
The current literature provides several studies that evaluated radiographic findings to identify lateral compartment OA. It has been shown that a positive tibial spine sign on AP radiographs of the knee does not indicate cartilage defects in the central area of the lateral compartment [45].
Furthermore, Waldstein et al. [46] showed that valgus stress radiographs of the knee are not suitable to identify lateral compartment OA with absolute certainty.
Another essential requirement for medial UKA is a functional sufficient anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) [40,47]. High numbers of tibial component loosening were reported for UKA in patients with an insufficient ACL [48,49]. In younger, more active patients, combined UKA with ACL reconstruction might be a treatment option [47,50]. While this is a technically demanding procedure, previous studies showed encouraging results [51,52].
For UKA, patient selection is crucial and various radiographs should be taken preoperatively. Hamilton et al. [53] provided a radiographic decision aid to identify patients that are suitable for UKA. Lateral radiographs of the knee can be used preoperatively to rule out posterior tibial erosion and, therefore, ACL insufficiency [54].
In uncertain cases, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended. The percentage of full-thickness cartilage posteriorly on the medial tibial plateau should be evaluated on the MRI. Less than 14% intact posterior cartilage indicates wear patterns that are associated with a functionally insufficient ACL [54].
As mentioned earlier, Kozinn and Scott postulated that varus alignment must be <10° to perform UKA surgery. However, medial UKA is still indicated if the intra-articular deformity is correctable after removal of medial osteophytes [53]. The correctability of deformity can be evaluated reliably using preoperative valgus stress radiographs [55]. Another radiographic finding that is associated with varus OA of the knee and more severe varus deformity, is the “coronal tibiofemoral subluxation” (CTFS) which is evaluated on AP radiographs of the knee [56]. A recent study found that a CTFS of ≥6 mm and a varus deformity of ≥10° are indicators for an insufficient ACL [34]. Therefore, both factors should be taken into consideration before scheduling a patient for UKA and medial UKA should not be performed if these values are exceeded.

2.2. Results

One third of patients with focal chondral defects in the medial compartment of the knee need a joint replacement surgery within 10 years [28]. The differentiation between symptoms of FCD or OA is difficult. A recent study found that patients that are scheduled for joint replacement surgery due to OA of the knee complain significantly more often about medial- sided pain, swelling and pain while fully extending the knee, standing upright or rising from a seated position [57]. However, the current literature does not provide data on the clinical outcome of patients with FCD of the knee that underwent UKA surgery. Further research is needed to shed light on the outcome of these particular patients. In cases of medially located chondral defects that progress to anteromedial OA, UKA is a well-accepted and effective long-term treatment option [58].

3. Focal Chondral Defects and Patellofemoral Joint Replacement

3.1. Indications for Patellofemoral Joint Replacement

Patellofemoral joint replacement (PFJR) is indicated in cases with isolated degeneration or deformity in the patellofemoral joint due to dysplasia or instability or FCD that progressed to OA in the patellofemoral joint [59]. Especially young and active patients <50 years with higher demands might be considered for PJFR. While small lesions can be replaced with a small resurfacing implant, larger areas of osteoarthritis usually require patellofemoral replacement including a patella component [60].
In patients with tibiofemoral OA, PFJR is contraindicated [61]. Restricted range of motion, chronic knee pain, inflammatory diseases of the knee or instability of the knee are also considered a contraindication [60].
Most isolated osteochondral defects in the patellofemoral joint are caused by a mechanical mismatch of patellofemoral joint components resulting in increased loads on the patellofemoral cartilage [62]. Dysplasia or malalignment might contribute to the mismatch. In these cases, a combined approach is recommended [60,63].
In patients with a pronounced dysplasia of the femoral trochlea, PFJR with combined reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament can be considered to prevent the patella from subsequent luxation [64]. Lateral position of the tibial tuberosity might cause maltracking of the patella. Simultaneous transfer of the tibial tuberosity is a treatment option in these cases to ensure that loading forces affect the patella medially and laterally equally. Maltracking can also to some degree be corrected by increasing the external rotation of an onlay femoral component. Combined PFJR and high tibial osteotomy or distal femur osteotomy might be used in patients with a deformity >5° varus or valgus [65]. However, the authors do not favor combined approaches since increased deformities are often a predictor for progression of the OA in the medial or lateral compartment and the outcome of a later total knee replacement is usually compromised by a prior femoral or tibial osteotomy [66,67].
For PFJR two different types of implants are available: Onlay-designs and Inlay-designs [61,68]. Onlay-implants replace the entire patellofemoral articular surface and produce a newly shaped trochlea. They are suitable for larger defects. The potential risk of “overstuffing” (narrowing the patellofemoral joint space) is a disadvantage of these implant types [61]. Inlay-implants only replace the affected area of articular surface. The implant is adjusted to the shape of the trochlea. Using Inlay-implants, overstuffing cannot occur [61]. Intraoperatively, a proper alignment of the prosthesis and soft-tissue balancing are crucial to optimize results and avoid patella-maltracking [69].

3.2. Results

The benefit of PFJR has been debated due to its high failure rates [70]. Revision rates were also high—especially when early Inlay-designs of patellofemoral prostheses were used [71]. As a result, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been the preferred treatment option for patellofemoral osteoarthritis regardless of the functional advantages a PFJR might provide compared to TKA [72,73]. When comparing modern designs of PFJR and TKA, no differences in the number of complications or revisions have been reported [72].
Careful patient selection prior to PFJR is crucial. A recent study showed similar patient-reported outcomes after second-generation PFJR and TKA if patients were selected appropriately [74]. Dejour et al. [75] postulated that early revision surgeries due to OA progression only occurred when patients were selected improperly. They also showed that PFJR should be restricted to patients that developed patellofemoral OA due to instability or maltracking of the patella and that it should not be used in patients with degenerative patellofemoral OA.
When comparing Inlay-designs with Onlay-designs in a matched-paired cohort, no differences were found between the two designs and both designs led postoperatively to significantly better functional outcome scores [76]. The only observed difference was that the progression of tibiofemoral OA occurred significantly more often in patients with an Onlay-design prosthesis.
Unnithan et al. [77] evaluated the outcome of six patients that underwent combined PFJR and osteochondral autograft transfer system (OATS) and found encouraging results. Only one patient needed a revision surgery due to progressive symptoms.
In cases of failed Inlay-prosthesis, it is a reasonable option to use an Onlay-prosthesis for revision surgery [71].
A recent retrospective study compared the outcome of patients with asymptomatic patellofemoral FCD undergoing UKA only versus undergoing UKA and concomitant PFJR with an Inlay-design prosthesis [78]. There was no benefit for patients who underwent the combined procedure, showing that even pronounced trochlear defects can be ignored during UKA if patients were asymptomatic preoperatively.
The current literature does not provide long-term outcomes of PFJR and further research is needed to confirm the encouraging short-term results also in the long-term.

4. Focal Chondral Defects and Focal Resurfacing

Symptomatic focal chondral lesions of the femoral condyle occur frequently in patients between 40–60 years [1,2]. The current literature provides hardly any data on treatment of middle-aged patients with FCD and failed biological treatment or patients with FCD who are not suitable for biological treatment options [79,80].
For focal full-thickness cartilage defects of the femoral condyle, a focal prosthetic inlay resurfacing is another possible treatment option when biological treatments have failed and total knee arthroplasty is not yet justified [81].
The indications for these implants are as follows [82]: Patients > 35 years, isolated osteochondral or full-thickness cartilage defects in weight-bearing areas of the femoral condyle (preferably the medial femoral condyle), intact ligaments, full range of motion, normal contralateral knee joint. Age > 65 years, varus or valgus alignment > 7°, BMI > 35 kg/m2 or cartilage damage in another compartment of the knee should be considered as contraindications [82].
As patients with focal metallic inlay resurfacing had significantly improved knee function and also significantly less pain, these implants were considered as an effective treatment option [80]. However, inconsistent results were published in regard to the OA- progression, ranging from a significant progression within 2 years [83,84] to no progression after 5 years [82].
Becher and Cantiller [22] observed two cases for 12 years. Both patients showed good clinical results and no progression of OA. Other studies showed good results in short-term patient-reported outcome measures, but also reported a high rate of required revision surgery to TKA [83,85].
Similar to UKA and PFJR, a proper preoperative evaluation and careful patient selection is mandatory. Furthermore, it is important to position implants accurately to avoid step offs or increased pressure on the opposite cartilage surface [18,86]. In addition, Malahias et al. [87] reported that Arthrosurface inlay implants were associated with a postoperative effusion. They stated that these procedures should only be used if prior biological treatments failed.
The development of newer customized femoral condyle implants with a combined guiding system streamlined the process to position the implant intraoperatively and helped to ensure an accurate position of the implant [88]. As a result, damage of the opposite cartilage surface can be avoided. Stålman et al. [89] presented the results of the first 10 patients that were treated with the abovementioned customized implant. In a 2-year follow-up, they found a good implant safety and also good to excellent patient-reported outcome measures. However, it is a relatively small cohort and further research is needed to postulate a generalized statement.

5. Conclusions

Focal chondral defects of the knee are common lesions that often progress to OA of the knee. Conservative treatment options might reduce pain; however, restoration of the articular cartilage cannot be accomplished in most older patients. If biological treatment options fail, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, patellofemoral joint replacement or focal resurfacing are reasonable options to postpone total knee arthroplasty. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is an accepted and well-evaluated treatment option with good long-term results. Patellofemoral joint replacement and focal resurfacing both showed good short-term results, but long-term results might be not as promising. Nevertheless, careful patient selection is crucial for all three treatment options to achieve best possible results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: F.B.; Writing—original draft preparation: B.S.; Writing—review and editing: F.B.; Supervision: F.B.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

An IRB approval was not necessary for the current study.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

Friedrich Boettner has received royalties by Smith and Nephew, Orthodeveloment and compensation by Smith and Nephew, Orthodevelopment, DePuy. Springer declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Curl, W.W.; Krome, J.; Gordon, E.S.; Rushing, J.; Smith, B.P.; Poehling, G.G. Cartilage injuries: A review of 31,516 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy 1997, 13, 456–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hjelle, K.; Solheim, E.; Strand, T.; Muri, R.; Brittberg, M. Articular cartilage defects in 1,000 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy 2002, 18, 730–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. McCarthy, J.C.; Lee, J.A. Acetabular dysplasia: A paradigm of arthroscopic examination of chondral injuries. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2002, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tannast, M.; Goricki, D.; Beck, M.; Murphy, S.B.; Siebenrock, K.A. Hip Damage Occurs at the Zone of Femoroacetabular Impingement. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2008, 466, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Klennert, B.J.; Ellis, B.J.; Maak, T.G.; Kapron, A.L.; Weiss, J.A. The mechanics of focal chondral defects in the hip. J. Biomech. 2017, 52, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. D’Ambrosi, R.; Usuelli, F.G. Osteochondral lesions of the talus: Are we ready for metal? Ann. Transl. Med. 2018, 6, S19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. McGoldrick, N.P.; Murphy, E.P.; Kearns, S.R. Osteochondral lesions of the ankle: The current evidence supporting scaffold-based techniques and biological adjuncts. Foot Ankle Surg. 2018, 24, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Flanigan, D.C.; Harris, J.D.; Trinh, T.Q.; Siston, R.A.; Brophy, R.H. Prevalence of chondral defects in athletes’ knees: A systematic review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010, 42, 1795–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Richter, W. Mesenchymal stem cells and cartilage in situ regeneration. J. Intern. Med. 2009, 266, 390–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Simon, T.M.; Jackson, D.W. Articular Cartilage: Injury Pathways and Treatment Options. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 2018, 26, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Frank, R.M.; Cotter, E.J.; Nassar, I.; Cole, B. Failure of Bone Marrow Stimulation Techniques. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 2017, 25, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Falah, M.; Nierenberg, G.; Soudry, M.; Hayden, M.; Volpin, G. Treatment of articular cartilage lesions of the knee. Int. Orthop. 2010, 34, 621–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Gersing, A.S.; Schwaiger, B.J.; Wörtler, K.; Jungmann, P.M. Advanced cartilage imaging for detection of cartilage injuries and osteochondral lesions. Der Radiol. 2018, 58, 422–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rehnitz, C.; Kupfer, J.; Streich, N.A.; Burkholder, I.; Schmitt, B.; Lauer, L.; Kauczor, H.U.; Weber, M.A. Comparison of biochemical cartilage imaging techniques at 3 T MRI. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2014, 22, 1732–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Salzmann, G.M.; Niemeyer, P.; Hochrein, A.; Stoddart, M.J.; Angele, P. Articular Cartilage Repair of the Knee in Children and Adolescents. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2018, 6, 2325967118760190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Cicuttini, F.; Ding, C.; Wluka, A.; Davis, S.; Ebeling, P.R.; Jones, G. Association of cartilage defects with loss of knee cartilage in healthy, middle-age adults: A prospective study. Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52, 2033–2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Seo, S.S.; Kim, C.W.; Jung, D.W. Management of focal chondral lesion in the knee joint. Knee Surg. Relat. Res. 2011, 23, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Becher, C.; Huber, R.; Thermann, H.; Paessler, H.H.; Skrbensky, G. Effects of a contoured articular prosthetic device on tibiofemoral peak contact pressure: A biomechanical study. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2008, 16, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Bedard, N.A.; DeMik, D.E.; Glass, N.A.; Burnett, R.A.; Bozic, K.J.; Callaghan, J.J. Impact of Clinical Practice Guidelines on Use of Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid and Corticosteroid Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2018, 100, 827–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Jevsevar, D.S. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: Evidence-based guideline, 2nd edition. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2013, 21, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Schlumberger, M.; Schuster, P.; Bülow, H.J.; Mayer, P.; Eichinger, M.; Immendörfer, M.; Richter, J. Technique of all arthroscopic autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) for the treatment of cartilage defects in the knee. Oper. Orthop. Traumatol. 2020, 32, 532–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Becher, C.; Cantiller, E.B. Focal articular prosthetic resurfacing for the treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee: 12-year follow-up of two cases and review of the literature. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2017, 137, 1307–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Calcei, J.G.; Ray, T.; Sherman, S.L.; Farr, J. Management of Large Focal Chondral and Osteochondral Defects in the Knee. J. Knee Surg. 2020, 33, 1187–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brittberg, M.; Recker, D.; Ilgenfritz, J.; Saris, D.B.F. Matrix-Applied Characterized Autologous Cultured Chondrocytes Versus Microfracture: Five-Year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial. Am. J. Sports Med. 2018, 46, 1343–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Niemeyer, P.; Albrecht, D.; Andereya, S.; Angele, P.; Ateschrang, A.; Aurich, M.; Baumann, M.; Bosch, U.; Erggelet, C.; Fickert, S.; et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) for cartilage defects of the knee: A guideline by the working group “Clinical Tissue Regeneration” of the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU). Knee 2016, 23, 426–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Gilat, R.; Haunschild, E.D.; Huddleston, H.P.; Tauro, T.M.; Patel, S.; Wolfson, T.S.; Parvaresh, K.C.; Yanke, A.B.; Cole, B.J. Osteochondral Allograft Transplant for Focal Cartilage Defects of the Femoral Condyles: Clinically Significant Outcomes, Failures, and Survival at a Minimum 5-Year Follow-up. Am. J. Sports Med. 2021, 49, 467–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Knutsen, G.; Drogset, J.O.; Engebretsen, L.; Grøntvedt, T.; Isaksen, V.; Ludvigsen, T.C.; Roberts, S.; Solheim, E.; Strand, T.; Johansen, O. A randomized trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture. Findings at five years. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2007, 89, 2105–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Spahn, G.; Hofmann, G.O. Focal cartilage defects within the medial knee compartment. predictors for osteoarthritis progression. Z. Orthop. Unf. 2014, 152, 480–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kreuz, P.C.; Erggelet, C.; Steinwachs, M.R.; Krause, S.J.; Lahm, A.; Niemeyer, P.; Ghanem, N.; Uhl, M.; Südkamp, N. Is microfracture of chondral defects in the knee associated with different results in patients aged 40 years or younger? Arthroscopy 2006, 22, 1180–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Wang, D.; Kalia, V.; Eliasberg, C.D.; Wang, T.; Coxe, F.R.; Pais, M.D.; Rodeo, S.A.; Williams, R.J., III. Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation of the Knee in Patients Aged 40 Years and Older. Am. J. Sports Med. 2018, 46, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Guccione, A.A.; Felson, D.T.; Anderson, J.J.; Anthony, J.M.; Zhang, Y.; Wilson, P.W.; Kelly-Hayes, M.; Wolf, P.A.; Kreger, B.E.; Kannel, W.B. The effects of specific medical conditions on the functional limitations of elders in the Framingham Study. Am. J. Public Health 1994, 84, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Leyland, K.M.; Hart, D.J.; Javaid, M.K.; Judge, A.; Kiran, A.; Soni, A.; Goulston, L.M.; Cooper, C.; Spector, T.D.; Arden, N.K. The natural history of radiographic knee osteoarthritis: A fourteen-year population-based cohort study. Arthritis Rheum 2012, 64, 2243–2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pandit, H.; Jenkins, C.; Gill, H.S.; Smith, G.; Price, A.J.; Dodd, C.A.; Murray, D.W. Unnecessary contraindications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2011, 93, 622–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Springer, B.; Waldstein, W.; Bechler, U.; Jungwirth-Weinberger, A.; Windhager, R.; Boettner, F. The Functional Status of the ACL in Varus OA of the Knee: The Association With Varus Deformity and Coronal Tibiofemoral Subluxation. J. Arthroplast. 2021, 36, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liddle, A.D.; Judge, A.; Pandit, H.; Murray, D.W. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: A study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2014, 384, 1437–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Kozinn, S.C.; Scott, R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 1989, 71, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Berger, R.; Della Valle, C.; Jacobs, J.J.; Sheinkop, M.B.; Rosenberg, A.G.; Galante, J.O. The progression of patellofemoral arthrosis after medial unicompartmental replacement: Results at 11 to 15 years. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2006, 452, 285–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Pandit, H.; Jenkins, C.; Barker, K.; Dodd, C.A.; Murray, D.W. The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2006, 88, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Parratte, S.; Argenson, J.N.; Dumas, J.; Aubaniac, J.M. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for avascular osteonecrosis. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2007, 464, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Goodfellow, J.W.; O’Connor, J.; Dodd, C.A.; Murray, D. Unicompartmental Arthroplasty with the Oxford Knee; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  41. Berger, R.A.; Della Valle, C.J. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Indications, techniques, and results. Instr. Course Lect. 2010, 59, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Faschingbauer, M.; Renner, L.; Waldstein, W.; Boettner, F. Are lateral compartment osteophytes a predictor for lateral cartilage damage in varus osteoarthritic knees? Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Bone Jt. J. 2015, 97-B, 1634–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Waldstein, W.; Kasparek, M.F.; Faschingbauer, M.; Windhager, R.; Boettner, F. Lateral-compartment Osteophytes are not Associated With Lateral-compartment Cartilage Degeneration in Arthritic Varus Knees. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Waldstein, W.; Perino, G.; Jawetz, S.T.; Gilbert, S.L.; Boettner, F. Does intraarticular inflammation predict biomechanical cartilage properties? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2014, 472, 2177–2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Boettner, F.; Springer, B.; Windhager, R.; Waldstein, W. The tibial spine sign does not indicate cartilage damage in the central area of the distal lateral femoral condyle. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Waldstein, W.; Schmidt-Braekling, T.; Perino, G.; Kasparek, M.F.; Windhager, R.; Boettner, F. Valgus Stress Radiographs Predict Lateral-Compartment Cartilage Thickness but Not Cartilage Degeneration in Varus Osteoarthritis. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 788–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mancuso, F.; Dodd, C.A.; Murray, D.W.; Pandit, H. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the ACL-deficient knee. J. Orthop. Traumatol. 2016, 17, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Goodfellow, J.; O’Connor, J. The anterior cruciate ligament in knee arthroplasty. A risk-factor with unconstrained meniscal prostheses. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1992, 276, 245–252. [Google Scholar]
  49. Goodfellow, J.W.; Kershaw, C.J.; Benson, M.K.; O’Connor, J.J. The Oxford Knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The first 103 cases. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 1988, 70, 692–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ventura, A.; Legnani, C.; Terzaghi, C.; Iori, S.; Borgo, E. Medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty combined to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017, 25, 675–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Volpin, A.; Kini, S.G.; Meuffels, D.E. Satisfactory outcomes following combined unicompartmental knee replacement and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Weston-Simons, J.S.; Pandit, H.; Jenkins, C.; Jackson, W.F.; Price, A.J.; Gill, H.S.; Dodd, C.A.; Murray, D.W. Outcome of combined unicompartmental knee replacement and combined or sequential anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A study of 52 cases with mean follow-up of five years. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2012, 94, 1216–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Hamilton, T.W.; Pandit, H.G.; Lombardi, A.V.; Adams, J.B.; Oosthuizen, C.R.; Clave, A.; Dodd, C.A.; Berend, K.R.; Murray, D.W. Radiological Decision Aid to determine suitability for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Development and preliminary validation. Bone Jt. J. 2016, 98-B, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Waldstein, W.; Merle, C.; Bou Monsef, J.; Boettner, F. Varus knee osteoarthritis: How can we identify ACL insufficiency? Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2015, 23, 2178–2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Waldstein, W.; Bou Monsef, J.; Buckup, J.; Boettner, F. The value of valgus stress radiographs in the workup for medial unicompartmental arthritis. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2013, 471, 3998–4003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Khamaisy, S.; Zuiderbaan, H.A.; Thein, R.; Gladnick, B.P.; Pearle, A.D. Coronal tibiofemoral subluxation in knee osteoarthritis. Skelet. Radiol. 2016, 45, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gilat, R.; Haunschild, E.D.; Patel, S.; Yang, J.; DeBenedetti, A.; Yanke, A.B.; Della Valle, C.J.; Cole, B.J. Understanding the difference between symptoms of focal cartilage defects and osteoarthritis of the knee: A matched cohort analysis. Int. Orthop. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Heyse, T.J.; Khefacha, A.; Peersman, G.; Cartier, P. Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee 2012, 19, 585–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kim, B.S.; Reitman, R.D.; Schai, P.A.; Scott, R.D. Selective patellar nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. 10 year results. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1999, 367, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Imhoff, A.B.; Feucht, M.J.; Meidinger, G.; Schöttle, P.B.; Cotic, M. Prospective evaluation of anatomic patellofemoral inlay resurfacing: Clinical, radiographic, and sports-related results after 24 months. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2015, 23, 1299–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cotic, M.; Imhoff, A.B. Patellofemoral arthroplasty: Indication, technique and results. Orthopade 2014, 43, 898–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Grelsamer, R.P.; Stein, D.A. Patellofemoral arthritis. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2006, 88, 1849–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Beitzel, K.; Schöttle, P.B.; Cotic, M.; Dharmesh, V.; Imhoff, A.B. Prospective clinical and radiological two-year results after patellofemoral arthroplasty using an implant with an asymmetric trochlea design. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2013, 21, 332–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dejour, H.; Walch, G.; Neyret, P.; Adeleine, P. Dysplasia of the femoral trochlea. Rev. Chir. Orthop. Reparatrice de L’appareil Mot. 1990, 76, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  65. Paley, D.; Pfeil, J. Principles of deformity correction around the knee. Orthopade 2000, 29, 18–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Seo, S.S.; Nha, K.W.; Kim, T.Y.; Shin, Y.S. Survival of total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy versus primary total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. Medicine 2019, 98, e16609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chen, X.; Yang, Z.; Li, H.; Zhu, S.; Wang, Y.; Qian, W. Higher risk of revision in total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2020, 21, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Cotic, M.; Imhoff, A.B. Alloarthroplastik des Patellofemoralen Gelenks; Expertise Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Thieme: Stuttgart, Germany, 2016; pp. 354–357. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lonner, J.H. Patellofemoral arthroplasty: Pros, cons, and design considerations. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Leadbetter, W.B.; Ragland, P.S.; Mont, M.A. The appropriate use of patellofemoral arthroplasty: An analysis of reported indications, contraindications, and failures. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2005, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lonner, J.H.; Bloomfield, M.R. The clinical outcome of patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 2013, 44, 271–280, vii. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dy, C.J.; Franco, N.; Ma, Y.; Mazumdar, M.; McCarthy, M.M.; Della Valle, A.G. Complications after patello-femoral versus total knee replacement in the treatment of isolated patello-femoral osteoarthritis. A meta-analysis. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2012, 20, 2174–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Van der List, J.P.; Chawla, H.; Villa, J.C.; Pearle, A.D. Why do patellofemoral arthroplasties fail today? A systematic review. Knee 2017, 24, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bunyoz, K.I.; Lustig, S.; Troelsen, A. Similar postoperative patient-reported outcome in both second generation patellofemoral arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty for treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis: A systematic review. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2019, 27, 2226–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dejour, D.; Saffarini, M.; Malemo, Y.; Pungitore, M.; Valluy, J.; Nover, L.; Demey, G. Early outcomes of an anatomic trochlear-cutting patellofemoral arthroplasty: Patient selection is key. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2019, 27, 2297–2302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Feucht, M.J.; Cotic, M.; Beitzel, K.; Baldini, J.F.; Meidinger, G.; Schöttle, P.B.; Imhoff, A.B. A matched-pair comparison of inlay and onlay trochlear designs for patellofemoral arthroplasty: No differences in clinical outcome but less progression of osteoarthritis with inlay designs. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017, 25, 2784–2791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Unnithan, A.; Jimulia, T.; Mohammed, R.; Learmonth, D.J. Unique combination of patellofemoral joint arthroplasty with Osteochondral Autograft Transfer System (OATS)-a case series of six knees in five patients. Knee 2008, 15, 187–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. van Buul, G.M.; Headon, R.; O’Toole, G.; Neligan, M.; O’Donnell, T. Does resurfacing of asymptomatic full-thickness localized articular defects of the trochlea influence the outcome following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty of the medial compartment? A retrospective cohort study with minimum seven-year follow-up. Knee 2020, 27, 1492–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Chahal, J.; Thiel, G.V.; Hussey, K.; Cole, B.J. Managing the patient with failed cartilage restoration. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 2013, 21, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Fuchs, A.; Eberbach, H.; Izadpanah, K.; Bode, G.; Südkamp, N.P.; Feucht, M.J. Focal metallic inlay resurfacing prosthesis for the treatment of localized cartilage defects of the femoral condyles: A systematic review of clinical studies. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2018, 26, 2722–2732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bollars, P.; Bosquet, M.; Vandekerckhove, B.; Hardeman, F.; Bellemans, J. Prosthetic inlay resurfacing for the treatment of focal, full thickness cartilage defects of the femoral condyle: A bridge between biologics and conventional arthroplasty. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2012, 20, 1753–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Becher, C.; Kalbe, C.; Thermann, H.; Paessler, H.H.; Laprell, H.; Kaiser, T.; Fechner, A.; Bartsch, S.; Windhagen, H.; Ostermeier, S. Minimum 5-year results of focal articular prosthetic resurfacing for the treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2011, 131, 1135–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Dhollander, A.A.M.; Almqvist, K.F.; Moens, K.; Vandekerckhove, P.J.; Verdonk, R.; Verdonk, P.; Victor, J. The use of a prosthetic inlay resurfacing as a salvage procedure for a failed cartilage repair. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2015, 23, 2208–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Laursen, J.O. Treatment of full-thickness cartilage lesions and early OA using large condyle resurfacing prosthesis: UniCAP®. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2016, 24, 1695–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Laursen, J.O.; Lind, M. Treatment of full-thickness femoral cartilage lesions using condyle resurfacing prosthesis. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017, 25, 746–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Martinez-Carranza, N.; Berg, H.E.; Hultenby, K.; Nurmi-Sandh, H.; Ryd, L.; Lagerstedt, A.S. Focal knee resurfacing and effects of surgical precision on opposing cartilage. A pilot study on 12 sheep. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2013, 21, 739–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Malahias, M.A.; Chytas, D.; Thorey, F. The clinical outcome of the different HemiCAP and UniCAP knee implants: A systematic and comprehensive review. Orthop. Rev. 2018, 10, 7531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Martinez-Carranza, N.; Ryd, L.; Hultenby, K.; Hedlund, H.; Nurmi-Sandh, H.; Lagerstedt, A.S.; Schupbach, P.; Berg, H.E. Treatment of full thickness focal cartilage lesions with a metallic resurfacing implant in a sheep animal model, 1 year evaluation. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2016, 24, 484–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Stålman, A.; Sköldenberg, O.; Martinez-Carranza, N.; Roberts, D.; Högström, M.; Ryd, L. No implant migration and good subjective outcome of a novel customized femoral resurfacing metal implant for focal chondral lesions. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2018, 26, 2196–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Springer, B.; Boettner, F. Treatment of Unicompartmental Cartilage Defects of the Knee with Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty, Patellofemoral Partial Knee Arthroplasty or Focal Resurfacing. Life 2021, 11, 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11050394

AMA Style

Springer B, Boettner F. Treatment of Unicompartmental Cartilage Defects of the Knee with Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty, Patellofemoral Partial Knee Arthroplasty or Focal Resurfacing. Life. 2021; 11(5):394. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11050394

Chicago/Turabian Style

Springer, Bernhard, and Friedrich Boettner. 2021. "Treatment of Unicompartmental Cartilage Defects of the Knee with Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty, Patellofemoral Partial Knee Arthroplasty or Focal Resurfacing" Life 11, no. 5: 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11050394

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop