Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unicompartmental osteoarthritis: an integrated biomechanical and biological approach as alternative to metal resurfacing

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Although traditionally not indicated for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), regenerative procedures are becoming a focus of increased interest due to their potential to provide pain relief and alter the progression of degenerative diseases. The purpose of this study was to assess whether a combined biomechanical and biological approach could offer good results in unicompartmental OA, thus delaying the need for unicompartmental arthroplasty in patients too young or refusing metal resurfacing.

Methods

Forty-three patients (mean age = 40.1 ± 11 years, 33 men and 10 women, mean BMI = 25 ± 3) affected by unicompartmental OA (Kellegren-Lawrence score = 3) in stable joints were enrolled and treated consecutively. Fifteen patients were treated with osteotomy and osteochondral biomimetic scaffold implant (3 of them also with meniscal substitution), 11 with osteotomy and meniscal scaffold implant, 9 with osteotomy and meniscal allograft implant, and 8 with both cartilage and meniscal reconstruction, depending on the specific joint compartment main requirements. Clinical evaluation was performed at 3-year (2–4) median follow-up using the following scoring systems: IKDC subjective and objective, VAS for pain, and Tegner scores. Failures, adverse events, and complications were also reported.

Results

The IKDC subjective score improved from 47.3 to 79.6 at the final evaluation (p < 0.0005), VAS improved from 6.1 to 2.3 (p < 0.0005), and also sport activity level evaluated with the Tegner score showed a significant improvement, from 2 (1–5) to 4 (3–10; p < 0.0005), even if without achieving the pre-injury level (6, p = 0.001). A further subanalysis confirmed the positive outcome obtained in all the treatment subgroups and showed a higher clinical improvement in patients under the age of 40 years (IKDC subjective 84.4 ± 13.2 vs 76.5 ± 17.3; p = 0.03).

Conclusion

This integrated biological and biomechanical approach produced a marked improvement at short–medium follow-up in patients affected by unicompartmental OA. Even though a good outcome was achieved at all ages, patients under the age of 40 years presented a greater clinical and subjective improvement. Longer follow-up studies are needed to show results over time and confirm this approach as an effective alternative to unicompartmental implants.

Level of evidence

Case series, Level IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bauer S, Khan RJ, Ebert JR et al (2012) Knee joint preservation with combined neutralising High Tibial Osteotomy (HTO) and Matrix-induced Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI) in younger patients with medial knee osteoarthritis: a case series with prospective clinical and MRI follow-up over 5 years. Knee 19(4):431–439

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bollars P, Bosquet M, Vandekerckhove B et al (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):1753–1759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cavallo C, Desando G, Facchini A, Grigolo B (2010) Chondrocytes from patients with osteoarthritis express typical extracellular matrix molecules once grown onto a three-dimensional hyaluronan-based scaffold. J Biomed Mater Res A 93(1):86–95

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dettoni F, Bonasia DE, Castoldi F et al (2010) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthrosis of the knee: a review of the literature. Iowa Orthop J 30:131–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Farr J, Rawal A, Marberry KM (2007) Concomitant meniscal allograft transplantation and autologous chondrocyte implantation: minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 35(9):1459–1466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Filardo G, Di Martino A, Kon E et al (2012) Midterm results of a combined biological and mechanical approach for the treatment of a complex knee lesion. Cartilage 3:288–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Filardo G, Kon E, Di Martino A et al (2012) Second-generation arthroscopic autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of degenerative cartilage lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(9):1704–1713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Garrett J (1993) Meniscal transplantation: a review of 43 cases with 2- to 7-year follow-up. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 1:164–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gomoll AH, Filardo G, Almqvist FK et al (2012) Surgical treatment for early osteoarthritis. Part II: allografts and concurrent procedures. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):468–486

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gomoll AH, Filardo G, de Girolamo L et al (2012) Surgical treatment for early osteoarthritis. Part I: cartilage repair procedures. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):450–466

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gomoll AH, Kang RW, Chen AL et al (2009) Triad of cartilage restoration for unicompartmental arthritis treatment in young patients: meniscus allograft transplantation, cartilage repair and osteotomy. J Knee Surg 22(2):137–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heijink A, Gomoll AH, Madry H et al (2012) Biomechanical considerations in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):423–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hollander AP, Dickinson SC, Sims TJ et al (2006) Maturation of tissue engineered cartilage implanted in injured and osteoarthritic human knees. Tissue Eng 12(7):1787–1798

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kon E, Delcogliano M, Filardo G et al (2010) A novel nano-composite multi-layered biomaterial for treatment of osteochondral lesions: technique note and an early stability pilot clinical trial. Injury 41(7):693–701

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kon E, Delcogliano M, Filardo C et al (2010) Orderly osteochondral regeneration in a sheep model using a novel nano-composite multilayered biomaterial. J Orthop Res 28(1):116–124

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kon E, Delcogliano M, Filardo G et al (2011) Novel nano-composite multilayered biomaterial for osteochondral regeneration: a pilot clinical trial. Am J Sports Med 39(6):1180–1190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kon E, Delcogliano M, Filardo G et al (2009) Novel nano-composite multi-layered biomaterial for the treatment of multifocal degenerative cartilage lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17(11):1312–1315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kon E, Filardo G, Condello V et al (2011) Second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation: results in patients older than 40 years. Am J Sports Med 39(8):1668–1675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kon E, Filardo G, Drobnic M et al (2012) Non-surgical management of early knee osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):436–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kon E, Filardo G, Marcacci M (2012) Early osteoarthritis Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):399–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A et al (2007) Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 78(1):128–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kreuz PC, Müller S, Ossendorf C et al (2009) Treatment of focal degenerative cartilage defects with polymer-based autologous chondrocyte grafts: four-year clinical results. Arthritis Res Ther 11(2):R33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lotz M (2012) Osteoarthritis year 2011 in review: biology. Osteoarthr Cartil 20(3):192–196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Luyten FP, Denti M, Filardo G et al (2012) Definition and classification of early osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):401–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM et al (2012) Meniscal allograft transplantation without bone plugs: A 3-year minimum follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 40(2):395–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Minas T, Gomoll AH, Solhpour S et al (2010) Autologous chondrocyte implantation for joint preservation in patients with early osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):147–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Minas T, Gomoll AH, Solpour S et al (2010) Autologous chondrocyte transplantation for joint preservation in patients with early osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:146–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nehrer S, Dorotka R, Domayer S et al (2009) Treatment of full-thickness chondral defects with hyalograft C in the knee: a prospective clinical case series with 2 to 7 years’ follow-up. Am J Sports Med 37(1):81S–87S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Niemeyer P, Lenz P, Kreuz PC et al (2010) Chondrocyte-seeded type I/III collagen membrane for autologous chondrocyte transplantation: prospective 2-year results in patients with cartilage defects of the knee joint. Arthroscopy 26(8):1074–1082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ossendorf C, Kaps C, Kreuz PC et al (2007) Treatment of posttraumatic and focal osteoarthritic cartilage defects of the knee with autologous polymer-based three-dimensional chondrocyte grafts: 2-year clinical results. Arthritis Res Ther 9(2):R41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ossendorf C, Steinwachs MR, Kreuz PC et al (2011) Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) for the treatment of large and complex cartilage lesions of the knee. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol 21(3):11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Paletta GA Jr, Manning T, Snell E et al (1997) The effect of allograft meniscal replacement on intraarticular contact area and pressures in the human knee. A biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med 25:692–698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pape D, Filardo G, Kon E et al (2010) Disease-specific clinical problems associated with the subchondral bone. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(4):448–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T et al (2000) Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71(3):262–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenberger RE, Gomoll AH, Bryant T, Minas T (2008) Repair of large chondral defects of the knee with autologous chondrocyte implantation in patients 45 years or older. Am J Sports Med 36(12):2336–2344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rue JH, Yanke AB, Busam ML et al (2008) Prospective evaluation of concurrent meniscus transplantation and articular cartilage repair: minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 36:1770–1778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ryu RK, Dunbar VWH, Morse GG (2002) Meniscal allograft replacement: a 1-year to 6-year experience. Arthroscopy 18:989–994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Saccomanni B (2010) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review of literature. Clin Rheumatol 29(4):339–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shirazi R, Shirazi-Adl A (2009) Computational biomechanics of articular cartilage of human knee joint: effect of osteochondral defects. J Biomech 42(15):2458–2465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Tallheden T, Bengtsson C, Brantsing C et al (2005) Proliferation and differentiation potential of chondrocytes from osteoarthritic patients. Arthr Res Ther 7(3):R560–R568

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Tohyama H, Yasuda K, Minami A et al (2009) Atelocollagen-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation for the repair of chondral defects of the knee: a prospective multicenter clinical trial in Japan. J Orthop Sci 14(5):579–588

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Verma NN, Kolb E, Cole BJ et al (2008) The effects of medial meniscal transplantation techniques on intra-articular contact pressures. J Knee Surg 21:20–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zaffagnini S, Giordano G, Vascellari A et al (2007) Arthroscopic collagen meniscus implant results at 6 to 8 years follow up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(2):175–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Giordano G et al (2009) Synthetic meniscal scaffolds. Tech Knee Surg 8(4):251–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bulgheroni P et al (2012) Arthroscopic collagen meniscus implantation for partial lateral meniscal defects: A 2-year minimum follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 40(10):2281–2288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Grassi A et al (2011) Arthroscopic lateral collagen meniscus implant in a professional soccer player. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(10):1740–1743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Lopomo N et al (2011) Prospective long-term outcomes of the medial collagen meniscus implant versus partial medial meniscectomy: a minimum 10-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 39(5):977–985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. II Orthopaedic Clinic and Biomechanics Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano n. 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy

    M. Marcacci, S. Zaffagnini, G. M. Marcheggiani Muccioli, A. Di Martino, B. Di Matteo, T. Bonanzinga & F. Iacono

  2. Nano-Biotechnology Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano n. 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy

    E. Kon & G. Filardo

Authors
  1. M. Marcacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Zaffagnini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Kon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. M. Marcheggiani Muccioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Di Martino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. Di Matteo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. T. Bonanzinga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. F. Iacono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. G. Filardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Marcacci.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marcacci, M., Zaffagnini, S., Kon, E. et al. Unicompartmental osteoarthritis: an integrated biomechanical and biological approach as alternative to metal resurfacing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 2509–2517 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2388-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2388-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation