Patient Evaluation and Surgical Decision Making

Farr, Jack; Lewis, Paul B.; Cole, Brian J.

doi:10.1055/s-0030-1248226

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include resolution of pain, prevention of further articular cartilage degradation, return to preinjury level of activity and function, and even improvement in quality of life. [4][5][6] Therefore, clinical studies of this patient population should ideally address manydif not alldof these outcome domains.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensiveness of Outcome Reporting in Studies of Articular Cartilage Defects of the Knee

Makhni

Meyer

Saltzman

et al. 2016

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensiveness of Outcome Reporting in Studies of Articular Cartilage Defects of the Knee

Makhni

Meyer

Saltzman

et al. 2016

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, indications for specific restorative procedures depend on absolute area, with microfracture and osteochondral autograft transplantation reserved for smaller (<2.5 cm 2 ) defects and autologous chondrocyte implantation and osteochondral allograft transplantation limited to larger (-4 cm 2 ) defects. 11 Beyond absolute measurements, evidence suggests that symptoms are more dependent on the relative size of the cartilage defect in relation to the size of the femoral condyle. Unfortunately, however, a significant disconnect remains between patient symptoms and the presence of a defect of any size or depth.…”

Section: Arthroscopic Evaluation Of Cartilage Defectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deciding How Best to Treat Cartilage Defects

Oliver-Welsh¹,

Griffin²,

Meyer³

et al. 2016

Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The decision-making regarding and treatment of cartilage abnormalities requires a systematic approach. This article reviews the concepts and principles that guide the management of this complex problem. The precise incidence, demographics, and progression of cartilage lesions have not been clearly delineated. Pursuing a patient-centered approach that considers the available nonsurgical and surgical options remains the cornerstone of patient care. The importance of determining concomitant knee pathologies, the proper interpretation and implications of imaging findings, and an accurate determination of the intra-articular and subchondral findings represent the primary elements of the decision analysis. Treatment options vary depending on patient goals, the disposition of the lesion, and a variety of other factors. The authors recommend proper patient education and consideration of how nonsurgical treatment or less invasive options such as arthroscopic debridement might be effective. If these strategies should fail, appropriate matching of a surgical procedure to the patient's pathology, goals, and expectations is warranted. Surgical options include debridement, marrow stimulation techniques, surface allograft treatments, autologous chondrocyte implantation, and osteochondral grafting (autograft and allograft) in addition to some emerging technologies. This article focuses on the decision-making process. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(6):343-350.].

show abstract

Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation

Jones

Peterson

2007

Cartilage Repair Strategies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient Evaluation and Surgical Decision Making

Cited by 6 publications

References 48 publications

Comprehensiveness of Outcome Reporting in Studies of Articular Cartilage Defects of the Knee

Comprehensiveness of Outcome Reporting in Studies of Articular Cartilage Defects of the Knee

Deciding How Best to Treat Cartilage Defects

Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About