Outcomes of Revision Cartilage Restoration Surgery for Failed Primary Treatment of Chondral or Osteochondral Defects of the Knee: A Systematic Review

Kyle N. Kunze, Steven Persaud, Juan Briano, Scott A. Rodeo, Russell F. Warren, Thomas L. Wickiewicz, Riley J. Williams
{"title":"Outcomes of Revision Cartilage Restoration Surgery for Failed Primary Treatment of Chondral or Osteochondral Defects of the Knee: A Systematic Review","authors":"Kyle N. Kunze, Steven Persaud, Juan Briano, Scott A. Rodeo, Russell F. Warren, Thomas L. Wickiewicz, Riley J. Williams","doi":"10.1177/03635465241260271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Failure of primary cartilage restoration procedures of the knee that proceed to necessitating revision cartilage procedures represent a challenging clinical scenario with variable outcomes reported in previous literature.Purpose:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and adverse events after revision cartilage restoration procedures of the knee for failed primary cartilage procedures.Study Design:Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:The PubMed, OVID/MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were queried in August 2023 for trials reporting on the outcomes of revision cartilage restoration procedures of the knee. Information pertaining to rates of failure, reoperations, graft-related complications, and patient-reported outcome measures were extracted. A meta-analysis using inverse-variance proportion models using Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformations and DerSimonian-Laird random-effects estimators was constructed to quantitatively describe the cumulative incidence of adverse events.Results:Sixteen studies (1361 patients; mean age, 35.7 ± 9.3 years) were included. The most frequently performed revision cartilage procedure was autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI; n = 755 [55.5%]). The overall rate of failure was 25.1% (95% CI, 14.4%-37.3%) at a mean 6.5 years (range, 2-26 years). The majority of studies (n = 9) reported a failure rate exceeding 20%. A significant reduction in failure was observed in favor of the revision osteochondral allograft cohort (19.0% [75/395] vs 35.7% [273/764]; relative risk, 0.63; P < .0001) compared with the revision ACI cohort. The pooled all-cause reoperation event rate was 40.8%, which ranged between 18.2% and 71.4% (13 studies). Of these studies, 12 reported reoperation rates exceeding 20%, and 7 reported rates exceeding 40%. The pooled graft-related complication event rate was 27.2%, which ranged between 5.4% and 56.6% (11 studies). Notably, all analyses demonstrated considerable or moderate heterogeneity, potentially influencing the observed variability in pooled effect estimates.Conclusion:One of every 4 patients may experience a secondary failure after undergoing a revision cartilage procedure. Revision using an osteochondral allograft may confer a meaningful reduction in the risk of failure relative to revision using ACI. High rates of graft-related complications and reoperations are also frequently observed in this population, highlighting the challenge of treating patients with failed primary treatment of chondral or osteochondral defects of the knee.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241260271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:Failure of primary cartilage restoration procedures of the knee that proceed to necessitating revision cartilage procedures represent a challenging clinical scenario with variable outcomes reported in previous literature.Purpose:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and adverse events after revision cartilage restoration procedures of the knee for failed primary cartilage procedures.Study Design:Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:The PubMed, OVID/MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were queried in August 2023 for trials reporting on the outcomes of revision cartilage restoration procedures of the knee. Information pertaining to rates of failure, reoperations, graft-related complications, and patient-reported outcome measures were extracted. A meta-analysis using inverse-variance proportion models using Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformations and DerSimonian-Laird random-effects estimators was constructed to quantitatively describe the cumulative incidence of adverse events.Results:Sixteen studies (1361 patients; mean age, 35.7 ± 9.3 years) were included. The most frequently performed revision cartilage procedure was autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI; n = 755 [55.5%]). The overall rate of failure was 25.1% (95% CI, 14.4%-37.3%) at a mean 6.5 years (range, 2-26 years). The majority of studies (n = 9) reported a failure rate exceeding 20%. A significant reduction in failure was observed in favor of the revision osteochondral allograft cohort (19.0% [75/395] vs 35.7% [273/764]; relative risk, 0.63; P < .0001) compared with the revision ACI cohort. The pooled all-cause reoperation event rate was 40.8%, which ranged between 18.2% and 71.4% (13 studies). Of these studies, 12 reported reoperation rates exceeding 20%, and 7 reported rates exceeding 40%. The pooled graft-related complication event rate was 27.2%, which ranged between 5.4% and 56.6% (11 studies). Notably, all analyses demonstrated considerable or moderate heterogeneity, potentially influencing the observed variability in pooled effect estimates.Conclusion:One of every 4 patients may experience a secondary failure after undergoing a revision cartilage procedure. Revision using an osteochondral allograft may confer a meaningful reduction in the risk of failure relative to revision using ACI. High rates of graft-related complications and reoperations are also frequently observed in this population, highlighting the challenge of treating patients with failed primary treatment of chondral or osteochondral defects of the knee.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
膝关节软骨或骨软骨缺损初级治疗失败的改良软骨修复手术的疗效:系统综述
背景:在以前的文献报道中,膝关节初级软骨修复手术失败导致需要翻修软骨手术,这是一个具有挑战性的临床场景,结果不一。目的:对膝关节软骨修复手术失败后的临床结果和不良事件进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。研究设计:系统评价和荟萃分析;证据等级,4级。方法:于2023年8月查询PubMed、OVID/MEDLINE和Cochrane数据库,以获取有关膝关节软骨修复手术结果的试验报告。提取了有关失败率、再手术率、移植物相关并发症和患者报告的结果措施的信息。采用Freeman-Tukey双反正弦变换和dersimonan - laird随机效应估计量的反方差比例模型进行meta分析,定量描述不良事件的累积发生率。结果:16项研究(1361例患者;平均年龄(35.7±9.3岁)。最常见的翻修软骨手术是自体软骨细胞植入(ACI;N = 755[55.5%])。总失败率为25.1% (95% CI, 14.4%-37.3%),平均6.5年(范围,2-26年)。大多数研究(n = 9)报告的失败率超过20%。观察到翻修骨软骨同种异体移植组的失败率显著降低(19.0% [75/395]vs 35.7% [273/764];相对危险度为0.63;P & lt;0.0001)与修订ACI队列相比。合并全因再手术发生率为40.8%,分别为18.2% ~ 71.4%(13项研究)。在这些研究中,12个报告的再手术率超过20%,7个报告的再手术率超过40%。移植物相关并发症发生率为27.2%,范围为5.4%至56.6%(11项研究)。值得注意的是,所有分析都显示出相当大或中等程度的异质性,这可能会影响合并效应估计中观察到的变异性。结论:每4例患者中就有1例在接受软骨翻修手术后会出现继发性衰竭。与ACI翻修相比,采用同种异体骨软骨移植翻修可显著降低翻修失败的风险。在这一人群中也经常观察到移植物相关并发症和再手术的高发率,这突出了对膝关节软骨或骨软骨缺损初次治疗失败的患者的治疗挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Tackle Techniques and Characteristics Associated With a Concussion in Tackling Players in the National Football League Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Return to Sport Testing Passing Rates for Healthy People: A Systematic Review Return to Sport in Athletes After Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation: A Systematic Review Radiological Risk Factors for Osteochondral Fractures in Patients With First-Time and Recurrent Patellar Instability: Data From the JUPITER Cohort Establishing Benchmarks for Case Minimum Requirements During Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–Accredited Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Training
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1