The John Insall Award: A Minimum 10-year Outcome Study of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation
- 1.1k Downloads
Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has demonstrated good and excellent results in over 75% of patients up to 10 years after surgery. Reports of longer-term outcomes, however, remain limited.
The purposes of this study were to describe the (1) survivorship of ACI grafts; (2) the long-term functional outcomes using validated scoring tools after ACI; and (3) to provide an analysis of potential predictors for failure.
Two hundred ten patients treated with ACI were followed for more than 10 years. Indications for the procedure included symptomatic cartilage defects in all compartments of the knee unresponsive to nonoperative measures. Mean age at surgery was 36 ± 9 years; mean defect size measured 8.4 ± 5.5 cm2. Outcome scores were prospectively collected pre- and postoperatively at the last followup.
At a mean of 12 ± 2 years followup, 53 of 210 patients (25%) had at least one failed ACI graft. Nineteen of these patients went on to arthroplasty, 27 patients were salvaged with revision cartilage repair, and seven patients declined further treatment; three patients were lost to followup. The modified Cincinnati increased from 3.9 ± 1.5 to 6.4 ± 1.5, WOMAC improved from 39 ± 21 to 23 ± 16, Knee Society Score (KSS) knee score rose from 54 ± 18 to 79 ± 19, and KSS function from 65 ± 23 to 78 ± 17 (all p < 0.0001). The Physical Component of the SF-36 score increased from 33 ± 14 to 49 ± 18, whereas the Mental Component improved from 46 ± 14 to 52 ± 15 (both p < 0.001). Survivorship was higher in patients with complex versus salvage-type lesions (p = 0.03) with primary ACI versus ACI after prior marrow stimulation (p = 0.004) and with concomitant high tibial osteotomy (HTO) versus no HTO (p = 0.01).
ACI provided durable outcomes with a survivorship of 71% at 10 years and improved function in 75% of patients with symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee at a minimum of 10 years after surgery. A history of prior marrow stimulation as well as the treatment of very large defects was associated with an increased risk of failure.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
KeywordsCartilage Defect High Tibial Osteotomy Cartilage Repair Minimal Clinically Important Difference Knee Society Score
Conflict of interest
One or more of the authors (TM, AHG) certifies that he, or a member of his or her immediate family, has or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, an amount of less than USD 10,000, from Genzyme BioSurgery/Sanofi (Cambridge, MA, USA). The institution of one or more of the authors (TM, AHG), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, has received during the study period funding from Genzyme BioSurgery/Sanofi.
- 3.Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Ehrich EW, Davies GM, Watson DJ, Bolognese JA, Seidenberg BC, Bellamy N. Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:2635–2641.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Filardo G, Kon E, Di Martino A, Patella S, Altadonna G, Balboni F, Bragonzoni L, Visani A, Marcacci M. Second-generation arthroscopic autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of degenerative cartilage lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:1704–1713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Guccione AA, Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Anthony JM, Zhang Y, Wilson PW, Kelly-Hayes M, Wolf PA, Kreger BE, Kannel WB. The effects of specific medical conditions on the functional limitations of elders in the Framingham Study. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:351–358.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Heir S, Nerhus TK, Rotterud JH, Loken S, Ekeland A, Engebretsen L, Aroen A. Focal cartilage defects in the knee impair quality of life as much as severe osteoarthritis: a comparison of knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score in 4 patient categories scheduled for knee surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:231–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Hunter W. On the structure and diseases of articulating cartilage. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1743;9:267.Google Scholar
- 27.Kish G, Hangody L. A prospective, randomised comparison of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for osteochondral defects in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:619; author reply 619–620.Google Scholar
- 28.Kon E, Filardo G, Berruto M, Benazzo F, Zanon G, Della Villa S, Marcacci M. Articular cartilage treatment in high-level male soccer players: a prospective comparative study of arthroscopic second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:2549–2557.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Kon E, Gobbi A, Filardo G, Delcogliano M, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M. Arthroscopic second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture for chondral lesions of the knee: prospective nonrandomized study at 5 years. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:33–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J, Almqvist KF, Verdonk R, Bellemans J, Luyten FP. Treatment of symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee: characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better clinical outcome at 36 months in a randomized trial compared to microfracture. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(Suppl 1):10S–19S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.Ware JE, Kosinski M. Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: a response. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:405–413; discussion 415–420.Google Scholar
- 58.Yates JW Jr. The effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte implantation for treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage lesions in Workers’ Compensation patients. Orthopedics. 2003;26:295–300; discussion 300–391.Google Scholar