Advertisement

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 451–456 | Cite as

Knee cartilage defect: marrow stimulating techniques

  • M. Zain Mirza
  • Richard D. Swenson
  • Scott A. LynchEmail author
Cartilage Repair Techniques in the Knee (A Dhawan, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cartilage Repair Techniques in the Knee

Abstract

Painful chondral defects of the knee are very difficult problems. The incidence of these lesions in the general population is not known since there is likely a high rate of asymptomatic lesions. The rate of lesions found during arthroscopic exam is highly variable, with reports ranging from 11 to 72 % Aroen (Aroen Am J Sports Med 32: 211-5, 2004); Curl(Arthroscopy13: 456-60, 1997); Figueroa(Arthroscopy 23(3):312-5, 2007;); Hjelle(Arthroscopy 18: 730-4, 2002). Examples of current attempts at cartilage restoration include marrow stimulating techniques, ostochondral autografts, osteochondral allografts, and autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Current research in marrow stimulating techniques has been focused on enhancing and guiding the biology of microfracture and other traditional techniques. Modern advances in stem cell biology and biotechnology have provided many avenues for exploration. The purpose of this work is to review current techniques in marrow stimulating techniques as it relates to chondral damage of the knee.

Keywords

Bone marrow stimulation Marrow stimulating techniques Microfracture Platelet-rich plasma Scaffolding Osteochondral lesion 

Notes

Compliance with Ethics Guideline

Conflict of Interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.

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

References

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

  1. 1.
    Aroen A, Loken S, et al. Articular cartilage lesions in 993 consecutive knee arthroscopies. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32:211–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curl WW, Krome J, Gordon ES, et al. Cartilage injuries: a review of 31,516 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy. 1997;13:456–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Figueroa D, Calvo R, et al. Knee chondral lesions: incidence and correlation between arthroscopic and magnetic resonance findings. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(3):312–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hjelle K, Solheim E, et al. Articular cartilage defects in 1,000 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy. 2002;18:730–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pridie KH, Gordon G. A method of resurfacing osteoarthritic knee joints. J Bone Joint Surg. 1959;41(3):618–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson LL. Arthroscopic abrasion arthroplasty historical and pathologic perspective: present status. Arthrosc: J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 1986;2(1):54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bert, Jack M. Abandoning microfracture of the knee: has the time come? Arthrosc: J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2015;31(3):501–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bert JM, Maschka K. The arthroscopic treatment of unicompartmental gonarthrosis: a five-year follow-up study of abrasion arthroplasty plus arthroscopic debridement and arthroscopic debridement alone. Arthrosc: J Arthrosc RelatSurg. 1989;5(1):25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steadman JR et al. Outcomes of microfracture for traumatic chondral defects of the knee: average 11-year follow-up. Arthrosc: J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2003;19(5):477–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steadman X, Richard J, et al. Microfracture technique for full-thickness chondral defects: technique and clinical results. Oper Tech Orthop. 1997;7(4):300–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mithoefer K et al. The microfracture technique for the treatment of articular cartilage lesions in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87(9):1911–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steinwachs MR, Guggi T, Kreuz PC. Marrow stimulation techniques. Injury. 2008;39(1):26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dowthwaite GP et al. The surface of articular cartilage contains a progenitor cell population. J Cell Sci. 2004;117(6):889–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shah MR et al. Articular cartilage restoration of the knee. Bull-Hosp Joint Dis New York. 2007;65(1):51.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Camp CL, Stuart MJ, Krych AJ. Current concepts of articular cartilage restoration techniques in the knee. Sports Health: Multidiscip Approach. 2014;6(3):265–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goyal D et al. Evidence-based status of microfracture technique: a systematic review of level I and II studies. Arthrosc: J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2013;29(9):1579–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Solheim E, et al. Results at 10–14 years after microfracture treatment of articular cartilage defects in the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2014); 1–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.•
    Bae, Dae K, et al. Survival analysis of microfracture in the osteoarthritic knee—,minimum 10-year follow-up. Arthroscopy: J Arthrosc Related Surg. 2013;29(2):244–50. Long term microfracture results.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gobbi A, Karnatzikos G, Kumar A. Long-term results after microfracture treatment for full-thickness knee chondral lesions in athletes. Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthroscopy Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2013); 1986–996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kroell, A. et al. Microfracture for chondral defects: assessment of the variability of surgical technique in cadavers. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatol, Arthrosc (2014): 1–6.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen H et al. Depth of subchondral perforation influences the outcome of bone marrow stimulation cartilage repair. J Orthop Res. 2011;29(8):1178–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eldracher M et al. Small subchondral drill holes improve marrow stimulation of articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(11):2741–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scillia AJ, et al. Return to play after chondroplasty of the lnee in National Football League Athletes. Am J Sports Med (2015): 0363546514562752.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steadman JR et al. The microfracture technique in the treatment of full-thickness chondral lesions of the knee in National Football League players. J Knee Surg. 2003;16(2):83–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steadman JR et al. Outcomes after knee microfracture of chondral defects in alpine ski racers. J Knee Surg. 2014;27(5):407–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaul G et al. Failed cartilage repair for early osteoarthritis defects: a biochemical, histological and immunohistochemical analysis of the repair tissue after treatment with marrow-stimulation techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(11):2315–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orth P et al. Effect of subchondral drilling on the microarchitecture of subchondral bone analysis in a large animal model at 6 months. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(4):828–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dewan, Ashvin K, et al. Evolution of autologous chondrocyte repair and comparison to other cartilage repair techniques. BioMed Res Int 2014 (2014).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nicolini AP et al. Updates in biological therapies for knee injuries: full thickness cartilage defect. Curr Revn Musculoskelet Med. 2014;7(3):256–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Knutsen G, Engebretsen L, Ludvigsen TC, Drogset JO, Grontvedt T, Solheim E, et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture in the knee. a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:455–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Knutsen G, Drogset JO, Engebretsen L, Grøntvedt T, Isaksen V, Ludvigsen TC, et al. A randomized trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture. Findings at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(10):2105–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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(1):33–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chevrier A et al. Chitosan–glycerol phosphate/blood implants increase cell recruitment, transient vascularization and subchondral bone remodeling in drilled cartilage defects. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15(3):316–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chung, Young J, et al. Cartilage extra-cellular matrix biomembrane for the enhancement of microfractured defects. Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthrosc. 2014;22(6):1249–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Verdonk P et al. Treatment of osteochondral lesions in the knee using a cell-free scaffold. Bone Joint J. 2015;97(3):318–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dai L., et al. One-step repair for cartilage defects in a rabbit model a technique combining the perforated decalcified cortical-cancellous bone matrix scaffold with microfracture. Am J sports Med (2014): 0363546513518415.Google Scholar
  37. 37.•
    Stanish, William D, et al. Novel scaffold-based BST-CarGel treatment results in superior cartilage repair compared with microfracture in a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg. 2013;95(18):1640–50. Randomized controlled trial comparing scaffold versus microfracture alone.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.•
    Shive MS et al. BST-CarGel® Treatment Maintains Cartilage Repair Superiority over Microfracture at 5 Years in a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Cartilage. 2015;6(2):62–72. Midterm follow up comparing scaffolding versus microfacture alone.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Guzmán-Morales J et al. Subchondral chitosan/blood implant-guided bone plate resorption and woven bone repair is coupled to hyaline cartilage regeneration from microdrill holes in aged rabbit knees. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2014;22(2):323–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lafantaisie-Favreau, Charles-Hubert, et al. Subchondral pre-solidified chitosan/blood implants elicit reproducible early osteochondral wound-repair responses including neutrophil and stromal cell chemotaxis, bone resorption and repair, enhanced repair tissue integration and delayed matrix deposition. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14(1):27.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mathieu C et al. Stereological analysis of subchondral angiogenesis induced by chitosan and coagulation factors in microdrilled articular cartilage defects. Osteoarthritis Cartil. 2013;21(6):849–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mascarenhas R et al. Role of platelet-rich plasma in articular cartilage injury and disease. J Knee Surg. 2014;28(01):003–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Krüger JP et al. Human platelet‐rich plasma stimulates migration and chondrogenic differentiation of human subchondral progenitor cells. J Orthop Res. 2012;30(6):845–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Siclari A et al. Cartilage repair in the knee with subchondral drilling augmented with a platelet-rich plasma-immersed polymer-based implant. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(6):1225–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.•
    Siclari A et al. A 5-year follow-up after cartilage repair in the knee using a platelet-rich plasma-immersed polymer-based implant. Open Orthopaedics J. 2014;8:346. Midterm follow-up of microfracture with PRP technique.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Enea D et al. One-step cartilage repair in the knee: collagen-covered microfracture and autologous bone marrow concentrate. A pilot study. Knee. 2015;22(1):30–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nam H et al. The effects of staged intra-articular injection of cultured autologous mesenchymal stromal cells on the repair of damaged cartilage: a pilot study in caprine model. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15(5):R129.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hoffman JK, Geraghty S, Protzman NM. Articular cartilage repair using marrow stimulation augmented with a viable chondral allograft: 9-month postoperative histological evaluation. Case Rep Orthop 2015 (2015).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Osti L, Del Buono A , Maffulli N. Application of pulsed electromagnetic fields after microfractures to the knee: a mid-term study. Int Orthop (2015); 1–6.Google Scholar
  50. 50.•
    Erggelet C. Enhanced marrow stimulation techniques for cartilage repair. Oper Tech Orthop. 2014;24(1):2–13. Overview of different marrow stimulation techniques.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fazalare JA, Griesser MJ, Siston RA, Flanigan DC. The use of continuous passive motion following knee cartilage defect surgery: a systematic review. Orthopedics. 2010;33(12):878.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Karnes JM, Harris JD, Griesser MJ, Flanigan DC. Continuous passive motion following cartilage surgery: does a common protocol exist? Phys Sports Med. 2013;41(4):53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vogt S, Angele P, Arnold M, Brehme K, Cotic M, Haasper C, et al. Practice in rehabilitation after cartilage therapy: an expert survey. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(3):311–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schmitt LC, Quatman CE, Paterno MV, Best TM, Flanigan DC. Functional outcomes after surgical management of articular cartilage lesions in the knee: a systematic literature review to guide postoperative rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(8):565–A10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Moran CJ et al. Restoration of articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg. 2014;96(4):336–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    McCormick F et al. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Zain Mirza
    • 1
  • Richard D. Swenson
    • 1
  • Scott A. Lynch
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Penn State Hershey Bone and Joint InstituteHersheyUSA

Personalised recommendations