Treatment of full-thickness femoral cartilage lesions using condyle resurfacing prosthesis
- 596 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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
KeywordsCondylar implant Femoral resurfacing Cartilage injury Knee prosthesis
- 1.Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (2013) Annual reportGoogle Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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