Advertisement

Treatment of full-thickness femoral cartilage lesions using condyle resurfacing prosthesis

Knee

Abstract

Purpose

The HemiCAP® implant for femoral resurfacing treatment of cartilage lesions was introduced in 2003. We present outcome from a prospective cohort study of 61 patients with both trochleal and condylar lesions treated with the HemiCAP® implant.

Methods

From 2007 to 2012, 61 patients were treated with femoral resurfacing using the HemiCAP implant. There were 36 femoral condyle implants and 25 trochleal implants. Indication for treatment with HemiCAP implant was symptomatic cartilage lesion at the femoral condyle demonstrated by MRI or arthroscopy, which was ICRS grade 3–4 and size less than 4 cm2. There were 24 males and 37 females with a median age of 49 (range 35–65) years. Patients were followed for 2 years with Knee Society subjective outcome scores (KSS), pain scores and radiographic evaluations and for 7 years with complications and reoperations.

Results

At 2-year follow-up, mean KSS was improved from 52 (6.2) to 90 (7.9), mean KSS function score was improved from 45 (7.5) to 92 (8.3), and mean Pain score improved from 7.1 (0.7) to 1.8 (1.7). Twenty-three per cent of implants were revised within 7 years to arthroplasty due to progression of cartilage lesions, progression of osteoarthritis, or increased knee pain. No difference between females and males was found for reoperation rate.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated improved subjective outcome and reduced pain after femoral resurfacing using the HemiCAP implant in a relatively large cohort of patients with symptomatic cartilage lesions. A concerning 23 % reoperation rate with conversion to arthroplasty was found. Femoral resurfacing implantation treatment can be a temporary treatment for cartilage lesions expected to develop into osteoarthritis and for younger patients not eligible for arthroplasty treatment.

Level of evidence

IV.

Keywords

Condylar implant Femoral resurfacing Cartilage injury Knee prosthesis 

References

  1. 1.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (2013) Annual reportGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becher C, Huber R, Thermann H, Ezechieli L, Ostermeier S, Wellmann M, von Skrbensky G (2011) Effects of a surface matching articular resurfacing device on tibiofemoral contact pressure: results from continuous dynamic flexion-extension cycles. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(3):413–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becher C, Kalbe C, Thermann H, Paessler HH, Laprell H, Kaiser T, Fechner A, Bartsch S, Windhagen H, Ostermeier S (2011) Minimum 5-year results of focal articular prosthetic resurfacing for the treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(8):1135–1143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biant LC, Bentley G, Vijayan S, Skinner JA, Carrington RW (2014) Long-term results of autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee for chronic chondral and osteochondral defects. Am J Sports Med 42(9):2178–2183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bollars P, Bousquet M, Vandekerckhove B, Hardeman F, Bellemans J (2012) Prosthetic inlay resurfacing for the treatment of focal, full thickness cartilage defects of the femoral condyle: a bridge between biologics and conventional arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(9):1753–1759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brennan SA, Devitt BM, O’Neill CJ, Nicholson P (2013) Focal femoral condyle resurfacing. Bone Joint J 95(3):301–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davies-Tuck ML, Wluka AE, Wang Y, Teichtahl AJ, Jones G, Ding C, Cicuttini FM (2008) The natural history of cartilage defects in people with knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 16(3):337–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dhollander AA, Almqvist KF, Moens K, Vandekerckhove PJ, Verdonk R, Verdonk P, Victor J (2014) The use of a prosthetic inlay resurfacing as a salvage procedure for a failed cartilage repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-2999-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flecher X, Parratte S, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2006) A 12–28-year followup study of closing wedge high tibial osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:91–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foran JR, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO (2013) Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):102–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI (2007) Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(3):519–525PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gomoll AH, Farr J, Gillogly SD, Kercher J, Minas T (2010) Surgical management of articular cartilage defects of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(14):2470–2490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gross AE, Kim W, Las Heras F, Backstein D, Safir O, Pritzker KP (2008) Fresh osteochondral allografts for posttraumatic knee defects: long-term followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(8):1863–1870CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harrysson OL, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF (2004) Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 421:162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heir S, Nerhus TK, Rotterud JH, Loken S, Ekeland A, Engebretsen L, Aroen A (2010) 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 38(2):231–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Imhoff AB, Feucht MJ, Meidinger G, Schottle PB, Cotic M (2015) Prospective evaluation of anatomic patellofemoral inlay resurfacing: clinical, radiographic, and sports-related results after 24 months. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(5):1299–1307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kirker-Head CA, Van Sickle DC, Ek SW, McCool JC (2006) Safety of, and biological and functional response to, a novel metallic implant for the management of focal full-thickness cartilage defects: preliminary assessment in an animal model out to 1 year. J Orthop Res 24(5):1095–1108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kreuz PC, Erggelet C, Steinwachs MR, Krause SJ, Lahm A, Niemeyer P, Ghanem N, Uhl M, Sudkamp N (2006) Is microfracture of chondral defects in the knee associated with different results in patients aged 40 years or younger? Arthroscopy 22(11):1180–1186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vanlauwe J, Saris DB, Victor J, Almqvist KF, Bellemans J, Luyten FP (2011) Five-year outcome of characterized chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture for symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee: early treatment matters. Am J Sports Med 39(12):2566–2574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryCounty Hospital of South JutlandSønderborgDenmark
  2. 2.Division of Sports Trauma, Orthopaedic DepartmentAarhus University HospitalAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations