Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Cartilage Restoration in the Adolescent Knee: a Systematic Review

  • Outcomes Research in Orthopedics (O Ayeni, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the outcomes and complications of described cartilage restoration techniques for cartilage defects (grades I to IV) in the adolescent knee.

Recent Findings

 Eleven studies satisfied the inclusion criteria comprising 307 patients with a mean follow-up of 4.6 years (range 1–18.9 years). Study patients were treated with autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) (n = 98, mean age 16.0), microfracture (MFx) (n = 36, mean age 15.4), internal fixation (n = 71, mean age 13.1), osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation (n = 78, mean age 16.4), and cartillage and excision (n = 24; mean age 14.2). ACI, MFx, OCA transplantation, and internal fixation showed significant improvement in knee functionality scores. The overall complication rate was 10.6% (n = 31). OCA transplantation had the highest complication rate (26.9%; n = 21/78).

Summary

In summary, our review shows that ACI was the most commonly used technique. Furthermore, ACI, MFx, OCA transplantation, and internal fixation show the most promise in treating the adolescent population due to positive postoperative functional outcomes and low complication rates. However, future studies with large sample sizes, standardized outcome documentation, and long-term follow-up are required to confirm these preliminary results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. • DiBartola AC, Wright BM, Magnussen RA, Flanigan DC. Clinical outcomes after autologous chondrocyte implantation in adolescents’ knees: a systematic review. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2016;32(9):1905–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2016.03.007Purpose: To perform a systematic review of the use of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) in the adolescent knee. Specific aims: (1) quantify clinical outcomes of ACI in adolescent knees, (2) identify lesion and patient factors that correlate with clinical outcome, and (3) determine the incidence of complications of ACI in adolescents. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Cochrane Collaboration Library databases were searched systematically. Outcome scores recorded included the International Knee Documentation Committee score, the International Cartilage Repair Society score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score, the visual analog scale, the Bentley Functional Rating score, the Modified Cincinnati Rating System, Tegner activity Lysholm scores, and return athletics. Outcome scores were compared among studies based on the proportion of adolescents achieving specific outcome quartiles at a minimum of 1-year follow-up. The methodological quality of studies was evaluated by Coleman methodology scores (CMSs). Results: Five studies reported on 115 subjects who underwent ACI with periosteal cover (ACI-P; 95, 83%), ACI with type I/type III collagen cover (ACI-C; 6, 5%), or matrix-induced ACI (MACI; 14, 12%). The mean patient age was 16.2 years (range, 11 years to 21 years). All studies were case series. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 74 months (mean, 52.3 months). The mean defect size was 5.3 cm 2(range, 0.96 cm 2to 14 cm 2). All studies reported improvement in clinical outcomes scores. Graft hypertrophy was the most common complication (7.0%). The mean preoperative clinical outcome percentage (based on the percentage of outcome scale used) was 37% (standard deviation (SD), 18.9%), and the mean postoperative clinical outcome percentage was 72.7% (SD, 16.9%). The overall percentage increase in clinical outcome scores was 35.7% (SD, 14.2%). The mean CMS was 47.8 (SD, 8.3). Conclusions: Cartilage repair in adolescent knees using ACI provides success across different clinical outcomes measures. The only patient- or lesion-specific factor that influenced clinical outcome was the shorter duration of preoperative symptoms. Level of evidence: level IV, a systemic review of level I–IV studies.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Perera J, Gikas P, Bentley G. The present state of treatments for articular cartilage defects in the knee. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012;94(6):381–7. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588412X13171221592573.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Habelt S, Hasler CC, Steinbrück K, Majewski M. Sport injuries in adolescents. Orthop Rev. 2011;3(2):18. https://doi.org/10.4081/or.2011.e18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaszkin-Bettag M. Is autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) an adequate treatment option for repair of cartilage defects in paediatric patients? Drug Discov Today. 2013;18(15–16):740–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2013.04.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Siparsky P, Bailey J, Dale K, Klement M, Taylor D. Open reduction internal fixation of isolated chondral fragments without osseous attachment in the knee. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5:232596711769628. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117696281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kung J. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence- based health care: validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J. 2010;4(2):84–91. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601004020084.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(1):1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fabricant PD, Yen Y-M, Kramer DE, Kocher MS, Micheli LJ, Lawrence JTR, et al. Fixation of traumatic chondral-only fragments of the knee in pediatric and adolescent athletes: a retrospective multicenter report. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(2):232596711775314. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117753140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pennock AT, Murphy RT, Bugbee W. Osteochondral allografting for knee lesions in the pediatric and adolescent population. Orthop J Sports Med. 2013;1(4_suppl):2325967113S0007. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967113S00076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Murphy RT, Pennock AT, Bugbee WD. Osteochondral allograft transplantation of the knee in the pediatric and adolescent population. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(3):635–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513516747.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ogura T, Bryant T, Minas T. Long-term outcomes of autologous chondrocyte implantation in adolescent patients. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(5):1066–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516682492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Niethammer TR, Holzgruber M, Gülecyüz MF, Weber P, Pietschmann MF, Müller PE. Matrix based autologous chondrocyte implantation in children and adolescents: a match paired analysis in a follow-up over three years post-operation. Int Orthop. 2017;41(2):343–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3321-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Macmull S, MT Parratt, Bentley G, et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the adolescent knee. Am J Sports Med 2011;39(8):1723–1731. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546511404202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chotel F, Knorr G, Simian E, Dubrana F, Versier G. Knee osteochondral fractures in skeletally immature patients: French multicenter study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(8):S154–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.09.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmal H, Strohm PC, Niemeyer P, Reising K, Kuminack K, Sudkamp NP. Fractures of the patella in children and adolescents. Acta Orthop Belg. 2010;76(5):644–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. •• Shanmugaraj A, Coughlin RP, Kuper GN, et al. Changing trends in the use of cartilage restoration techniques for the patellofemoral joint: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5139-4Purpose: The patellofemoral (PF) joint contains the thickest articular cartilage in the human body. Chondral lesions to this area are often misdiagnosed and can predispose to secondary osteoarthritis if left untreated. Treatment options range from arthroscopic debridement to cartilage restoration techniques such as microfracture (MFx), autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), and osteochondral autograft transplantation. The purpose of this study was to systematically assess the trends in surgical techniques, outcomes, and complications of cartilage restoration of the PF joint. Methods: This review has been conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched from January 1, 2007, to April 30, 2018. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. A two-proportionztest was used to determine whether the differences between the proportions of cartilage restoration techniques used from 2007 to 2012 and from 2013 to 2018 were statistically significant. Results: Overall, 28 studies were identified, including 708 patients (824 knees) with a mean age of 39.5 ± 10.5 years and a mean follow-up of 39.1 ± 16.0 months. Majority of patients were treated with ACI (45.5%) and MFx (29.6%). A significant increase in the use of the third-generation ACI occurred with a simultaneously decreased usage of the conventional MFx over the last 5 years (p< 0.001). All techniques had significant (p< 0.05) improvements in clinical outcomes. The overall complication rate was 9.2%, of which graft hypertrophy (2.7%) was the most prevalent. Conclusions: ACI was the most common restoration technique. The use of third-generation ACI has increased with a concurrent decline in the use of conventional MFx over the latter half of the past decade (p< 0.001). Overall, the various cartilage restoration techniques reported improvements in patient-reported outcomes with low complication rates. Definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment remain elusive due to a lack of high-quality comparative studies. Level of evidence: level IV, a systematic review of level II–IV studies.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mithoefer K, Peterson L, Zenobi-Wong M, Mandelbaum BR. Cartilage issues in football—today’s problems and tomorrow’s solutions. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(9):590–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094772.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Torrie AM, Kesler WW, Elkin J, Gallo RA. Osteochondral allograft. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2015;8(4):413–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-015-9298-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. • Valtanen RS, Arshi A, Kelley BV, Fabricant PD, Jones KJ. Articular cartilage repair of the pediatric and adolescent knee with regard to minimal clinically important difference: a systematic review. Cartilage. 2018:194760351878350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603518783503Objective: To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes following microfracture (MFx), autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation, and osteochondral autograft transplantation system (OATS) to treat articular cartilage lesions in pediatric and adolescent patients. We sought to compare postoperative improvements for each cartilage repair method to minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds. Design: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies reporting MCID-validated outcome scores in a minimum of 5 patients of age ≤ 19 years who were treated for symptomatic knee chondral lesions with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. One-samplettests were used to compare mean outcome score improvements to established MCID thresholds. Results: Twelve studies reporting clinical outcomes on a total of 330 patients following cartilage repair were identified. The mean age of patients ranged from 13.7 to 16.7 years, and the mean follow-up was 2.2 years to 9.6 years. Six studies reported on ACI, 4 studies reported on MFx, 2 studies reported on OATS, and 1 study reported on OCA transplantation. ACI (p< 0.001,p= 0.008) and OCA transplantation (p< 0.001) showed significant improvement for International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores with regard to MCID while MFx (p= 0.66) and OATS (p= 0.11) did not. ACI (p< 0.001) and OATS (p= 0.010) both showed significant improvement above MCID thresholds for Lysholm scores. MFx (p= 0.002) showed visual analog scale (VAS) pain score improvement above MCID threshold while ACI (p= 0.037,p= 0.070) was equivocal. Conclusions: Outcome data on cartilage repair in the pediatric and adolescent knee are limited. This review demonstrates that all available procedures provide postoperative improvement above published MCID thresholds for at least one reported clinical pain or functional outcome score.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. • Pareek A, Carey JL, Reardon PJ, Peterson L, Stuart MJ, Krych AJ. Long-term outcomes after autologous chondrocyte implantation: a systematic review at mean follow-up of 11.4 years. Cartilage. 2016;7(4):298–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603516630786Objective: Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has not been proven to be durable over the long term. The purpose of this systematic review was (1) to evaluate activity level and knee function, (2) to evaluate reoperation and failure rates, and (3) to analyze risk factors for reoperation and failure of ACI at minimum long-term follow-up. Design: A comprehensive review was performed for studies with long-term outcomes after ACI for cartilage defect repair. Studies reported outcome scores such as Tegner score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Society (IKDC) score along with rates of failure and reoperation. Modified Coleman methodology scores were calculated to assess study methodological quality. Results: Nine studies with a total of 771 patients with a mean age of 33.4 ± 2.5 years, mean defect size of 5.9 ± 1.6 cm 2, and mean follow-up of 11.4 years were included. The Tegner score, Lysholm score, and IKDC score change from preoperative to final follow-up was 1.1 point (95% CI 0.8–1.4,p< 0.001), 24.9 points (95% CI 18.8–31,p< 0.001), and 16.5 points (95% CI 5.4–27.5,p< 0.01), respectively. The mean failure and reoperation rates were 18% and 37%, respectively. Increased age and lesion size (> 4.5 cm 2) were significantly correlated with an increased risk of reoperation and failure. Conclusions: Overall, ACI demonstrated successful outcomes in 82% of patients over the long term. Increased patient age and lesion size greater than 4.5 cm 2were risk factors for a higher reoperation and failure rate. Nonetheless, this review is limited by heterogeneity in surgical technique and by lesion and patient characteristics.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Harris JD, Siston RA, Brophy RH, Lattermann C, Carey JL, Flanigan DC. Failures, re-operations, and complications after autologous chondrocyte implantation—a systematic review. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2011;19(7):779–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2011.02.010.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Salzmann GM, Sah B-R, Schmal H, Niemeyer P, Sudkamp NP. Microfracture for treatment of knee cartilage defects in children and adolescents. Pediatr Rep. 2012;4(2):21. https://doi.org/10.4081/pr.2012.e21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Seo S-S, Kim C-W, Jung D-W. Management of focal chondral lesion in the knee joint. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2011;23(4):185–96. https://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.2011.23.4.185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kang H, Li J, Chen X-X, Wang T, Liu S-C, Li H-C. Fixation versus excision of osteochondral fractures after patellar dislocations in adolescent patients: a retrospective cohort study. Chin Med J. 2018;131(11):1296–301. https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.232800.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olufemi R. Ayeni.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

Ryan P. Coughlin, MD FRCSC, Arnav Gupta, MD (Cand.), Olawale A. Sogbein, MD (Cand.), Ajaykumar Shanmugaraj, BHSc, Adrian Z. Kurz, MD, FRCSC, Nicole Simunovic, MSc, Yi-Meng Yen, MD PhD, and Olufemi R. Ayeni, MD PhD FRCSC, declare no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Outcomes Research in Orthopedics

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Search strategy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coughlin, R.P., Gupta, A., Sogbein, O.A. et al. Cartilage Restoration in the Adolescent Knee: a Systematic Review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 12, 486–496 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09595-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09595-x

Keywords

Navigation