Background: Focal cartilage lesions of the knee remain a difficult entity to treat. Current treatment options include arthroscopic debridement, microfracture, autograft or allograft osteochondral transplantation, and cell-based therapies such as autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Osteochondral transplantation techniques restore the normal topography of the condyles and provide mature hyaline cartilage in a single-stage procedure. However, clinical outcomes comparing autograft versus allograft techniques are scarce. Purpose: To perform a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality studies to evaluate the results of osteochondral autograft and allograft transplantation for the treatment of symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted using various databases. Inclusion criteria were level 1 or 2 original studies, studies with patients reporting knee cartilage injuries and chondral defects, mean follow-up ≥2 years, and studies focusing on osteochondral transplant techniques. Exclusion criteria were studies with nonknee chondral defects, studies reporting clinical outcomes of osteochondral autograft or allograft combined with other procedures, animal studies, cadaveric studies, non–English language studies, case reports, and reviews or editorials. Primary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes and failure rates associated with both techniques, and factors such as lesion size, age, sex, and the number of plugs transplanted were assessed. Metaregression using a mixed-effects model was utilized for meta-analyses. Results: The search resulted in 20 included studies with 364 cases of osteochondral autograft and 272 cases of osteochondral allograft. Mean postoperative survival was 88.2% in the osteochondral autograft cohort as compared with 87.2% in the osteochondral allograft cohort at 5.4 and 5.2 years, respectively ( P = .6605). Patient-reported outcomes improved by an average of 65.1% and 81.1% after osteochondral autograft and allograft, respectively ( P = .0001). However, meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in patient-reported outcome percentage change between osteochondral autograft and allograft ( P = .97) and a coefficient of 0.033 (95% CI, –1.91 to 1.98). Meta-analysis of the relative risk of graft failure after osteochondral autograft versus allograft showed no significant differences ( P = .66) and a coefficient of 0.114 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.69). Furthermore, the regression did not find other predictors (mean age, percentage of female patients, lesion size, number of plugs/grafts used, and treatment location) that may have significantly affected patient-reported outcome percentage change or postoperative failure between osteochondral autograft versus allograft. Conclusion: Osteochondral autograft and allograft result in favorable patient-reported outcomes and graft survival rates at medium-term follow-up. While predictors for outcomes such as mean age, percentage of female patients, lesion size, number of plugs/grafts used, and treatment location did not affect the comparison of the 2 cohorts, proper patient selection for either procedure remains paramount to the success and potentially long-term viability of the graft.
Background: The use of “orthobiologics” or regenerative therapies in orthopaedic surgery has grown in recent years. Particular interest has been raised with regard to platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate, adipose-derived cells, and amniotic cells. Although studies have analyzed outcomes after orthobiologic treatment, no study has analyzed how the literature as a whole has evolved. Purpose: To evaluate trends in platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate, adipose-derived cells, and amniotic cell publications and to assess how these might inform efforts to establish minimum reporting standards and forecast future use. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A database was compiled systematically using PubMed to identify articles published between 2009 and 2019 within 9 prominent orthopaedic journals and pertaining to the use of platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate, adipose-derived cells, and amniotic cells in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Included articles were classified as clinical, nonclinical (translational or basic science), or review, and a variety of study parameters were recorded for each. Additional queries were performed to identify articles that utilized minimum reporting standards. Results: A total of 474 articles (132 clinical, 271 nonclinical, 71 review) were included, consisting of 244 (51.5%) platelet-rich plasma, 146 (30.8%) bone marrow aspirate, 72 (15.2%) adipose-derived cells, and 12 (2.5%) amniotic cells. The greatest annual increase in publications for each orthobiologic topic was from 2018 to 2019. The American Journal of Sports Medicine demonstrated the highest number of overall (34.2%) and clinical (50.0%) publications, and accounted for 44.3% of all platelet-rich plasma publications. The Journal of Orthopaedic Research accounted for the second highest overall number of publications (24.9%) and highest nonclinical publications (41.0%). Platelet-rich plasma accounted for 91.5% of all level 1 clinical studies, while much greater than half of bone marrow aspirate, adipose-derived cells, and amniotic cell publications were level 3 or lower. Out of the 207 articles that used some form of reporting protocol, 59 (28.5%) used an established algorithm and 125 (60.4%) used their own. Conclusion: Interest in orthobiologics continues to grow, as evidenced by an increasing trend in publications over an 11-year period. However, current reporting on orthobiologic formulations is largely heterogeneous, emphasizing the need for minimum reporting standards and higher-quality studies.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.