cartilage repair techniques - actual changes in indication · 2016-09-24 · cartilage injury in...
TRANSCRIPT
Cartilage repair techniques -
actual changes in indication
Angele
Conflict of Interest
Company: Aesculap,Arthrex, Orteq
x consultant
x research activities
Patient selection
Ideal patient for cartilage repair
Focal defect
Isolated defect
Intact corresponding joint surface
Short duration of symptoms
No prior surgery
Stable defect edge
Individualised therapy
Patient selection
Cartilage injury in athletes „Prognostic parameter after cartilage treatment“
age (<40 years) (Microfracture, OCT, ACT)
[Mithoefer, 2005,2006; Gudas, 2006]
Interval of pain (<1 year) significant better outcome after Mfx (p=0,009) and ACT (p<0,01; 0,05)
[Mithoefer, 2005,2005,2006]
Number of previous knee surgeries none: 86% RTS; more than one: 67% no RTS [Mithoefer, 2005,2005,2006]
Professional (after Mfx and ACT)
[Kreuz, 2007; Blevins 1998]
Tissue Response
OCT
ACT
Footprint Cartilage injury Laterale Hypercompression syndrome Patella luxation
Patellofemoral shear stress
injury
osteoarthitis
Biologic cartilage-
reconstruction
Osteotomy
Ligament- reconstruction
Meniscus- therapy
Fracture repair
Moderne Joint therapy (early phase)
1) MACT 2) HTO D.E. 29.09.64
Treat the comorbidity /
underlying cause of cartilage defect
Treat the comorbidity /
underlying cause of cartilage defect
drugs Brace / insole Physiotherapy
Cartilage repair
Niemeyer et al, 2013, 2016
Defect size
Activity level
Therapy
low high
Subchondral defect
large small
Bone augmentation
Indication Microfracture
Cartilage defects (ICRS Grad 3): < 2-3cm2
[Mithoefer, 2006; Gudas, 2005; Asik, 2008; Kreuz, 2006]
BMI: <30kg/m2 [Mithoefer, 2005; Asik, 2008]
Femoral defects (Retropatellar and tibial reduced outcome) [Kreuz, 2006]
< 40 years [Steadman, 2003; Gudas, 2005; Asik, 2008; Knutsen, 2004; Kreuz, 2006]
[reviewed in Gomoll, 2012]
Not a first line treatment
for all cartilage lesion
Drilling better than Microfracture (Superclot) Microfracture: Compacted bone=sealing of canals Drilling: Removal of bone, access to marrow, 6mm more Superclot then 2mm
Microfracture / Drilling
[Chen, 2009, 2011, 2011]
• rectangular full-thickness chondral defect
• trochlea, adult sheep
• treated with 6 subchondral drillings (1.0 and 1.8 mm)
• osteochondral repair assessed after 6 months in vivo
Effect of hole size on repair Mona Eldracher Dietrich Pape/Henning Madry
1.0 mm holes...
Effect of hole size on cartilage repair
….significant enhancements at individual and overall histological
cartilage repair, reduced type-I collagen content
Eldracher, Madry et al. Am J Sports Med 2014
Smaller drill holes are better
AMIC: Initial pain reduction & functional improvement MRI variable defect filling AMIC vs. MACI: better results in MRI with MACI Stable clinical results over mid-term is inconclusive
Microfracture and Biomaterial
Benthien, 2010,2011; Dhollander, 2011; Gille, 2010; Bark,2014
Improvement over microfracture? Yes possible, but not proven yet
75
80
85
90
95
100
Lesio
n %
Fill
0 BST-CarGel MFX
70,46
85,04
30
50
70
90
BST-CarGel MFX
T2 R
ela
xation T
ime (
ms)
p=0.033
®
Reference control T2 ~50ms
Reference Literature T2 ~57ms
Quantitativ Qualitativ
Microfracture and Biomaterial (BST-CarGel, Smith Nephew)
Stanish, 2013
large arthrotomy
co-morbidity due to periost harvest
risk of leakage
long surgery
no periost harvest necessary
small arthrotomy
no sealing necessary as cells are immobilized in biomaterial
shorter surgery + b
iom
ate
ria
l c
las
sic
Chondrocyte transplantation
First to third generation
Gudas R, Kalesinskas RJ, Kimtys V, Stankevicius E, Toliusis V, Bernotavicius G, Smailys A. A prospectiverandomizedclinicalstudyofmosaicosteochondral
autologoustransplantation versus microfractureforthetreatmentof osteochondraldefects in thekneejoint in youngathletes. Arthroscopy. 2005
Sep;21(9):1066-75.
Dozin B, Malpeli M, Cancedda R, Bruzzi P, Calcagno S, Molfetta L, Priano F, Kon E, Marcacci M. Comparativeevaluationofautologouschondrocyteimplantation
andmosaicplasty: a multicenteredrandomizedclinicaltrial. Clin J Sport Med. 2005 Jul;15(4):220-6.
Bartlett W, Skinner JA, Gooding CR, Carrington RW, Flanagan AM, Briggs TW,
Bentley G. Autologouschondrocyteimplantation versus matrix-inducedautologous chondrocyteimplantationforosteochondraldefectsoftheknee: a prospective,
randomisedstudy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 May;87(5):640-5.
Knutsen G, Engebretsen L, Ludvigsen TC, Drogset JO, Grøntvedt T, Solheim E, Strand T, Roberts S, Isaksen V, Johansen O. Autologouschondrocyteimplantation
comparedwithmicrofracture in theknee. A randomizedtrial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Mar;86-A(3):455-64.
Bentley G, Biant LC, Carrington RW, Akmal M, Goldberg A, Williams AM, Skinner
JA, Pringle J. A prospective, randomisedcomparisonofautologouschondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplastyforosteochondraldefects in theknee. J Bone
Joint Surg Br. 2003 Mar;85(2):223-30.
Horas U, Pelinkovic D, Herr G, Aigner T, Schnettler R. Autologouschondrocyte implantationandosteochondralcylindertransplantation in cartilagerepairof thekneejoint. A prospective, comparativetrial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003
Feb;85-A(2):185-92.
Wondrasch B, Zak L, Welsch GH, Marlovits S. Effectofaccelerated weightbearing after matrix-associatedautologouschondrocyteimplantation on the
femoralcondyle on radiographicandclinicaloutcome after 2 years: a prospective, randomizedcontrolledpilotstudy. Am J Sports Med. 2009 Nov;37
Suppl 1:88S-96S.
Vanlauwe J, Saris DB, Victor J, Almqvist KF, Bellemans J, Luyten FP; for the TIG/ACT/01/2000&EXT Study Group.Five-Year Outcome of Characterized Chondrocyte Implantation Versus
Microfracture for Symptomatic Cartilage Defects of the Knee: Early Treatment Matters. Am J Sports Med. 2011 Sep 9.
Gudas R, Simonaityte R, Cekanauskas E, Tamosiūnas R. A prospective, randomized clinicalstudyofosteochondralautologoustransplantation versus microfracture
forthetreatmentofosteochondritisdissecans in thekneejoint in children. J PediatrOrthop. 2009 Oct-Nov;29(7):741-8.
Zeifang F, Oberle D, Nierhoff C, Richter W, Moradi B, Schmitt H. Autologous
chondrocyteimplantationusingthe original periosteum-cover technique versus matrix-associatedautologouschondrocyteimplantation: a randomizedclinical
trial. Am J Sports Med. 2010 May;38(5):924-33.
Van Assche D, Van Caspel D, Vanlauwe J, Bellemans J, Saris DB, Luyten FP, Staes F. Physicalactivitylevels after characterizedchondrocyteimplantation versus microfracture in thekneeandtherelationshiptoobjectivefunctional
outcomewith 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2009 Nov;37 Suppl 1:42S-49S.
Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J, Almqvist KF, Verdonk R, Bellemans J, Luyten FP; TIG/ACT/01/2000&EXT Study Group. Treatment ofsymptomaticcartilagedefects
oftheknee: characterizedchondrocyteimplantationresults in betterclinical outcomeat 36 months in a randomizedtrialcomparedtomicrofracture. Am J Sports
Med. 2009 Nov;37 Suppl 1:10S-19S.
Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J, Haspl M, Bohnsack M, Fortems Y, Vandekerckhove B, Almqvist KF, Claes T, Handelberg F, Lagae K, van der Bauwhede J, Vandenneucker
H, Yang KG, Jelic M, Verdonk R, Veulemans N, Bellemans J, Luyten FP. Characterizedchondrocyteimplantationresults in betterstructuralrepairwhen
treatingsymptomaticcartilagedefectsoftheknee in a randomizedcontrolled trial versus microfracture. Am J Sports Med. 2008 Feb;36(2):235-46.
Knutsen G, Drogset JO, Engebretsen L, Grøntvedt T, Isaksen V, Ludvigsen TC,
Roberts S, Solheim E, Strand T, Johansen O. A randomizedtrialcomparing autologouschondrocyteimplantationwithmicrofracture. Findingsatfiveyears. J
Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89(10):2105-12.
Gudas R, Stankevicius E, Monastyreckiene E, Pranys D, Kalesinskas RJ. Osteochondralautologoustransplantation versus microfractureforthetreatment
ofarticularcartilagedefects in thekneejoint in athletes. KneeSurg Sports TraumatolArthrosc. 2006 Sep;14(9):834-42.
Saris D(1), Price A(2), Widuchowski W(3), Bertrand-Marchand M(4), Caron J(5), Drogset JO(6), Emans P(7), Podskubka A(8), Tsuchida A(9), Kili S(10), Levine
D(11), Brittberg M(12); SUMMIT study group. Matrix-Applied Characterized Autologous Cultured Chondrocytes Versus Microfracture: Two-Year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial.
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Jun;42(6):1384-94. doi: 10.1177/0363546514528093. Epub 2014 Apr 8.
Prospective randomised trials for chondrocyte transplantation
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for prospective randomised studies (ACT / MACT)
The major 8 RCT for „cartilage regeneration“ include patients according to almost the same inclusion criteria
- Representation only 4 % patients in daily clinical routine
- No explanation of medical sensefulness of inclusion and exclusion criteria available
Engen et al., Cartilage 2010
106 centers
Patient follow up over 10 y
>2500 registered patients
Industry independent
Hip – Knee - Ankle
Initiative of Working group „Tissue Regeneration“ of DGOU
GCP conform data base
Stand: 1.3.2016
Degenerative genesis
Partial meniscectomy
Reduced cartilage height at defect edge
Beginning damage of corresponding joint surface
Changed joint homeostasis
„Every day“ Indication for cartilage repair
Patient selection for MACT
?
Consensus Meeting Verona 2015 Focal early OA
KSSTA June 2016
injury
gonarthrosis
Biologic cartilage-
reconstruction
Osteotomy
Ligament- reconstruction
Meniscus- therapy
Fracture repair
Modern Joint therapy (Late stage)
Joint replacement Conservative
therapy
Biologic cartilage-
reconstruction
?
Outcome Analysis (KOOS 12 months)
Defect ethiology
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Trauma Degeneration OCD
Non-Responder
Resonder
Stand: 1.3.2016
2015
Significant improvement:
- Swelling
- Pain
- Function
p<0,0001
Complication – defect type
Angele, 2015
No indication for chondrocyte transplantation
Niemeyer et al, 2013, 2016
Defect size
Activity level
Therapy
low high
Subchondral defect
large small
Bone augmentation
Osteochondral transplantation - Small osteochondral Lesion
OCT
Z.n. OCT med. FC
1y postOP
PJ 28.11.76
Level IV Study 20% failure after 1 y (=3 of 20) Poor integration Scare tissue with Foreign body reaction
Dhollander, 2012
B.P.19.8.93
Osteochondritis dissecans Lat. FC Grad IV
Stöhr, Angele, 2013
Bone block Augmentation / MACT
50 patients
1-3 years follow-
up
IKDC Score:
50 points
improvement
Bone block augmentation / MACT
MRI correlates with good clinical outcome
• Indication and patient selection
• Degenerative focal cartilage defect:
•Improved clinical outcome to baseline
•Increase in failure rate (2 fold)
• Understand the trauma mechanism
• Treatment of underlying comorbidity
Summary – What has changed?
Summary Osteochondral lesions
•Treat the bone defect
•Small osteochondral lesions – osteochondral transfer
•Huge chondral and osteochondral defects:
- Significant improvement with MACT +/- Bone block
augments
- MRI and clinical evaluation show correlation
• Cell free implants – variable / questionable results,
no correlation between MRI and clinical evaluation
ACL-rupture–
40% cartilage damage in
athletes
Best treatment is
prevention !
Thank you for your attention
Early OA
25./26.11.2016