Donor-site morbidity after osteochondral autologous transplantation for osteochondritis dissecans of the capitellum: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

PurposeTo determine the rate of donor-site morbidity after osteochondral autologous transplantation (OATS) for capitellar osteochondritis dissecans.MethodsA literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify studies up to November 6, 2016. Criteria for inclusion were OATS for capitellar osteochondritis dissecans, reported outcomes related to donor sites, ≥10 patients, ≥1 year follow-up, and written in English. Donor-site morbidity was defined as persistent symptoms (≥1 year) or cases that required subsequent intervention. Patient and harvest characteristics were described, as well as the rate of donor-site morbidity. A random effects model was used to calculate and compare weighted group proportions.ResultsEleven studies including 190 patients were included. In eight studies, grafts were harvested from the femoral condyle, in three studies, from either the 5th or 6th costal-osteochondral junction. The average number of grafts was 2 (1–5); graft diameter ranged from 2.6 to 11 mm. In the knee-to-elbow group, donor-site morbidity was reported in 10 of 128 patients (7.8%), knee pain during activity (7.0%) and locking sensations (0.8%). In the rib-to-elbow group, one of 62 cases (1.6%) was complicated, a pneumothorax. The proportion in the knee-to-elbow group was 0.04 (95% CI 0.0–0.15), and the proportion in the rib-to-elbow group was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00–0.06). There were no significant differences between both harvest techniques (n.s.).ConclusionsDonor-site morbidity after OATS for capitellar osteochondritis dissecans was reported in a considerable group of patients.Level of evidenceLevel IV, systematic review of level IV studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00167-017-4516-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Elbow Injuries in the Adolescent Thrower

“…For unstable fragmented lesions, this typically includes debridement of the lesion, removal of loose bodies, and concomitant marrow stimulation with abrasion chondroplasty or microfracture [30•, 31-35]. Alternatively, several open and arthroscopic techniques exist for lesion repair with fragment [24] fixation as well as restorative procedures such as osteochondral autografting and allografting and cellularinduced cartilage scaffolds [36][37][38][39][40][41][42].…”

Constructing Gene‐Enhanced Tissue Engineering for Regeneration and Repair of Osteochondral Defects

“…3D tissue engineering composite biomaterials constructed in vitro can be used to repair, maintain, or improve the damaged tissue by transplanting them into the lesion site . Autologous transplantation is called the “golden standard” of clinical repair treatment, but its small repair area, high secondary incidence of donor area, and insufficient donor sources have been restricting the large‐scale clinical application of autologous transplantation . Tissue engineering not only provides a new therapeutic option to relieve the patient's pain, but more importantly, it overcomes the above difficulties and may be a viable alternative to regenerative therapy close to the gold standard .…”

Biofabrication of soft tissue templates for engineering the bone–ligament interface

“…This can lead to abnormal stress concentrations at the interface with resultant instability of the graft and poor long-term outcome (Friedman et al, 1985;Kurosaka et al, 1987;Lu and Jiang, 2006;Robertson et al, 1986). Grafts pose their own problems: autografts can result in significant donor site morbidity, and allografts and xenografts carry risks of immunogenicity and disease transmission (Bexkens et al, 2017;Martin et al, 1998;Patience et al, 1997;Puga Yung et al, 2017). As a result, the recapitulation of the native interface through tissue engineering perhaps represents the most promising strategy for successful repair of these complex tissues.…”