Successful osteoconduction but limited cartilage tissue quality following osteochondral repair by a cell-free multilayered nano-composite scaffold at the knee
- 560 Downloads
The treatment of larger osteochondral lesions in the knee is still a clinical challenge. One promising strategy to overcome this problem could be surgical repair by using a cell-free multilayered nano-composite scaffold.
In this prospective cohort study eight consecutive patients which suffered from a single osteochondral lesion (≥1.5 cm2) on the femoral condyle were enrolled. The repair potential of the implant was assessed by using MRI based biochemical MR sequences (T2 mapping) as well as semi-quantitative morphological analyses (MOCART score) at 18 months after the surgery. The clinical outcome was determined at six, 12, 18, and 24 month follow ups by using IKDC, Tegner-Lysholm, and Cincinnati knee scores.
Seven out of eight patients showed a complete integration of the scaffold into the border zone and five out of eight patients excellent or good subchondral ossification of the implant at 18 months following implantation. The surface of the repair tissue was found to be intact in all eight patients. T2 mapping data and the zonal T2 index significantly differed in the repair tissue compared to the healthy control cartilage (P < 0.001) which indicates a limited quality of the repair cartilage. The clinical outcome scores consistently improved during the follow up period without reaching statistical significance.
Osteochondral repair by implanting the MaioRegen® scaffold provides a successful osteoconduction and filling of the cartilage defect. However there is evidence for a limited repair cartilage tissue quality at 18 months after the surgery.
KeywordsOsteochondral lesions Knee Osteochondral repair Scaffold
The authors deeply appreciate Michael Weber (MD) for his help with statistics.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interests
The authors declare that there are no existing conflicts of interest.
- 1.McCormick F, Harris JD, Abrams GD, Frank R, Gupta A, Hussey K, Wilson H, Bach B Jr, Cole B (2014) Trends in the surgical treatment of articular cartilage lesions in the United States: an analysis of a large private-payer database over a period of 8 years. Arthroscopy 30(2):222–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Bentley G, Bhamra JS, Gikas PD, Skinner JA, Carrington R, Briggs TW (2013) Repair of osteochondral defects in joints—how to achieve success. Injury 44(Suppl 1):S3–S10Google Scholar
- 11.Christensen BB, Foldager CB, Jensen J, Jensen NC, Lind M (2015) Poor osteochondral repair by a biomimetic collagen scaffold: 1- to 3-year clinical and radiological follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18Google Scholar
- 15.Marlovits S, Singer P, Zeller P, Mandl I, Haller J, Trattnig S (2006) Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) for the evaluation of autologous chondrocyte transplantation: determination of interobserver variability and correlation to clinical outcome after 2 years. Eur J Radiol 57(1):16–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Trattnig S, Ohel K, Mlynarik V, Juras V, Zbyn S, Korner A (2015) Morphological and compositional monitoring of a new cell-free cartilage repair hydrogel technology—GelrinC by MR using semi-quantitative MOCART scoring and quantitative T2 index and new zonal T2 index calculation. Osteoarthr Cartil 23(12):2224–2232Google Scholar
- 25.Welsch GH, Mamisch TC, Domayer SE, Dorotka R, Kutscha-Lissberg F, Marlovits S, White LM, Trattnig S (2008) Cartilage T2 assessment at 3-T MR imaging: in vivo differentiation of normal hyaline cartilage from reparative tissue after two cartilage repair procedures--initial experience. Radiology 247(1):154–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar