The treatment of patellofemoral cartilage defects presents several distinct challenges when compared with cartilage restoration techniques used for other compartments of the knee due to the unique anatomy and distribution of forces. The etiologies of patellofemoral articular cartilage lesions include acute traumatic instability injuries, such as dislocation and subluxation, osteochondritis dissecans, and chronic degenerative changes. Regardless of the etiology, untreated patellofemoral cartilage lesions can contribute to activity-limiting anterior knee pain. The goal of patellofemoral cartilage restoration procedures is to impart symptomatic relief and improve quality of life by repairing the articular cartilage surface and any comorbid malalignment or maltracking.Microfracture and osteochondral autograft transplantation (OAT) are two cartilage restoration procedures to consider when treating full-thickness patellofemoral chondral defects. Considered by some experts to be the gold standard therapy, microfracture is one of the most common procedures used for cartilage restoration. The technique involves the perforation of the subchondral bone plate for the release of marrow elements, filling the defect with a fibrocartilage clot repair. Though less commonly used, OAT allows defect replacement with native hyaline cartilage via autologous transplantation from a non-weight bearing area. The purpose of this article is to discuss the indication, technical considerations, and outcomes of microfracture and OAT when used for treating chondral lesions of the patellofemoral joint.
The use of allografts has become a vital option for orthopaedic surgeons in the treatment of a variety of musculoskeletal lesions, ranging from osteochondral defects in the glenohumeral joint to meniscal deficiency in the young athlete. Nevertheless, barriers to treating a patient with an allograft-based procedure may arise from concerns over disease transmission, the navigation of tissue banks that supply allografts, the process of obtaining insurance approval, or optimal storage methods. This review serves to support orthopaedic surgeons in the incorporation of allografts into their practice by quelling these potential concerns. Fresh osteochondral allografts, fresh-frozen meniscal allografts, soft tissue allografts, and off-the-shelf cartilage products are the focus of this review amid broad overviews of allograft safety and tissue bank practices in the United States.
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.
Injectable facial fillers have become tremendously more popular in recent years, and the Internet offers a proportional amount of consumer-facing educational material. This study sought to explore the quality of these online materials. The top 20 Web sites offering educational materials about facial filler were identified via Google search and sorted by source: Medical Professional Boards, Hospitals and Providers, Medical News and Reference, and Fashion. The materials were assessed for overall quality with the validated DISCERN instrument. The authors also assessed understandability and actionability (Patient Education Material Assessment Tool - PEMAT), accuracy, comprehensiveness, and readability (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease). The mean DISCERN score was 46.9 ± 7.6, which is considered “fair” quality educational material; above “poor,” but below “good” and “excellent.” Understandability and actionability scores were low, particularly with respect to visual aids. The materials were generally accurate (76–99%), but scored poorly in comprehensiveness, as 15% failed to mention any risks/adverse effects and only 35% mentioned cost. On average, readability was at an 11th grade level, far more complex than ideal (< 6th grade level). Information disseminated from seemingly reputable sources such as professional boards and hospitals/providers were not of higher quality or superior in any of the above studied domains. In conclusion, online educational materials related to injectable facial fillers are of subpar quality, including those from academic and professional organizations. Visual aids were particularly weak. The facial rejuvenation community should make a concerted effort to set a higher standard for disseminating such information.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.