Patellofemoral Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation

Gomoll, Andreas H.; Farr, Jack; Hinckel, Betina B.

doi:10.1053/j.otsm.2015.03.002

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many techniques have been described for cartilage restoration in the PF joint, including osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) among others. 34,42 Long-term improvement has been described with these techniques. 7,12,38,63,67,73,83,85 In addition, recently other emerging techniques, such as bone marrow aspirate concentration (BMAC) implantation and particulated juvenile articular cartilage allograft (PJAC), have had increased utilization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Patellofemoral Cartilage Restoration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Many surgical options for treating patellofemoral (PF) cartilage lesions are available but with limited evidence comparing their results. Purpose: To determine and compare outcomes of PF cartilage restoration techniques. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed by utilizing the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies in the English language, patient-reported outcomes after PF cartilage restoration surgery, and >12 months’ follow-up. Quality assessment was performed with the Coleman Methodology Score. Techniques were grouped as osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA), osteochondral autograft transfer (OAT), chondrocyte cell–based therapy, bone marrow–based therapy, and scaffolds. Results: A total of 59 articles were included. The mean Coleman Methodology Score was 71.8. There were 1937 lesions (1077 patellar, 390 trochlear, and 172 bipolar; 298 unspecified). The frequency of the procedures was as follows, in descending order: chondrocyte cell–based therapy (65.7%), bone marrow–based therapy (17.2%), OAT (8%), OCA (6.6%), and scaffolds (2.2%). When compared with the overall pooled lesion size (3.9 cm2; 95% CI, 3.5-4.3 cm2), scaffold (2.2 cm2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.5 cm2) and OAT (1.5 cm2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9 cm2) lesions were smaller ( P < .001), while chondrocyte cell–based therapy lesions were larger (4.7 cm2; 95% CI, 4.1-5.3 cm2; P = .039). Overall, the instability pool was 11.9%, and the anatomic risk factors pool was 32.1%. Statistically significant improvement was observed on at least 1 patient-reported outcome in chondrocyte cell–based therapy (83%), OAT (78%), OCA (71%), bone marrow–based therapy (64%), and scaffolds (50%). There were no significant differences between any group and the overall pooled change in International Knee Documentation Committee score (30.2; 95% CI, 27.4-32.9) and Lysholm score (25.2; 95% CI, 16.9-33.5). There were no significant differences between any group and the overall pooled rate in minor complication rate (7.6%; 95% CI, 4.7%-11.9%) and major complication rate (8.3%; 95% CI, 5.7%-12.0%); however, OCA had a significantly greater failure rate (22.7%; 95% CI, 14.6%-33.4%) as compared with the overall rate (6.8%; 95% CI, 4.7%-9.5%). Conclusion: PF cartilage restoration leads to improved clinical outcomes, with low rates of minor and major complications. There was no difference among techniques; however, failures were higher with OCA.

show abstract