Johannes Weishorn, Philipp Niemeyer, Peter Angele, Gunther Spahn, Thomas Tischer, Tobias Renkawitz, Yannic Bangert
{"title":"软骨修复失败后的二次基质相关自体软骨细胞植入术与自体骨移植术联合使用效果更佳:德国软骨登记处(KnorpelRegister DGOU)的研究结果。","authors":"Johannes Weishorn, Philipp Niemeyer, Peter Angele, Gunther Spahn, Thomas Tischer, Tobias Renkawitz, Yannic Bangert","doi":"10.1002/ksa.12467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate whether additive autologous bone grafting (ABG) improves clinical outcome and survival in revision matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (M-ACI) after failed cartilage repair (CR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, registry-based, matched-pair analysis was performed to compare patient-reported outcomes and survival in secondary M-ACI with or without additional bone grafting for focal full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee and to compare it with those in primary M-ACI. Patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index, defect size and localization, and number of previous CRs. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was assessed over a follow-up period of 36 months. The patient acceptable symptomatic state, the clinical response rate and the survival of the subgroups were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 818 patients were matched. Revision M-ACI (n = 238) with concomitant bone grafting was associated with significantly higher PRO as measured by KOOS (80.8 ± 16.8 vs. 72.0 ± 17.5, p = 0.032) and higher CRR (81.4% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.018) at 36 months compared to patients with revision M-ACI alone. KOOS and KOOS improvement in these patients did not differ from those who underwent primary M-ACI (p = n.s.). The combination of M-ACI and ABG resulted in a significantly higher KOOS at 36 months than M-ACI alone, regardless of whether bone marrow stimulation (89.6 ± 12.5 vs. 68.1 ± 17.9, p = 0.003) or ACI (82.6 ± 17.0 vs. 72.8 ± 16.0, p = 0.021) was performed before. Additional bone grafting results in equivalent survival rates at 7 years in secondary compared to primary M-ACI (83% vs. 84%, p = n.s.).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regardless of the type of previous CR, additional bone grafting in secondary M-ACI improves the clinical outcome, response rate and survival at 36 months compared to M-ACI alone. Secondary M-ACI with ABG had comparable clinical response and survival rates to primary M-ACI. Therefore, subchondral bone should be treated even in cases of mild bone involvement in revision M-ACI.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Secondary matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation after failed cartilage repair shows superior results when combined with autologous bone grafting: Findings from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU).\",\"authors\":\"Johannes Weishorn, Philipp Niemeyer, Peter Angele, Gunther Spahn, Thomas Tischer, Tobias Renkawitz, Yannic Bangert\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ksa.12467\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate whether additive autologous bone grafting (ABG) improves clinical outcome and survival in revision matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (M-ACI) after failed cartilage repair (CR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, registry-based, matched-pair analysis was performed to compare patient-reported outcomes and survival in secondary M-ACI with or without additional bone grafting for focal full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee and to compare it with those in primary M-ACI. Patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index, defect size and localization, and number of previous CRs. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was assessed over a follow-up period of 36 months. The patient acceptable symptomatic state, the clinical response rate and the survival of the subgroups were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 818 patients were matched. Revision M-ACI (n = 238) with concomitant bone grafting was associated with significantly higher PRO as measured by KOOS (80.8 ± 16.8 vs. 72.0 ± 17.5, p = 0.032) and higher CRR (81.4% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.018) at 36 months compared to patients with revision M-ACI alone. KOOS and KOOS improvement in these patients did not differ from those who underwent primary M-ACI (p = n.s.). The combination of M-ACI and ABG resulted in a significantly higher KOOS at 36 months than M-ACI alone, regardless of whether bone marrow stimulation (89.6 ± 12.5 vs. 68.1 ± 17.9, p = 0.003) or ACI (82.6 ± 17.0 vs. 72.8 ± 16.0, p = 0.021) was performed before. Additional bone grafting results in equivalent survival rates at 7 years in secondary compared to primary M-ACI (83% vs. 84%, p = n.s.).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regardless of the type of previous CR, additional bone grafting in secondary M-ACI improves the clinical outcome, response rate and survival at 36 months compared to M-ACI alone. Secondary M-ACI with ABG had comparable clinical response and survival rates to primary M-ACI. Therefore, subchondral bone should be treated even in cases of mild bone involvement in revision M-ACI.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12467\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12467","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究旨在评估添加自体骨移植(ABG)是否能改善软骨修复(CR)失败后翻修性基质相关自体软骨细胞植入术(M-ACI)的临床疗效和存活率:我们进行了一项基于登记的配对回顾性分析,比较膝关节局灶性全厚软骨缺损的二次M-ACI患者报告的疗效和存活率,并将其与初次M-ACI的疗效和存活率进行比较。患者的年龄、性别、体重指数、缺损大小和定位以及既往CR次数均匹配。在36个月的随访期间,对膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果评分(KOOS)进行了评估。确定了患者可接受的症状状态、临床反应率和亚组的存活率:结果:共有 818 名患者进行了配型。与单独接受 M-ACI 翻修术的患者相比,同时接受骨移植的 M-ACI 翻修术患者(n = 238)在 36 个月后的 KOOS(80.8 ± 16.8 vs. 72.0 ± 17.5,p = 0.032)和 CRR(81.4% vs. 52.0%,p = 0.018)显著高于 KOOS(80.8 ± 16.8 vs. 72.0 ± 17.5,p = 0.032)和 CRR(81.4% vs. 52.0%,p = 0.018)。这些患者的 KOOS 和 KOOS 改善情况与接受初治 M-ACI 的患者没有差异(p = n.s.)。无论之前是否进行了骨髓刺激(89.6 ± 12.5 vs. 68.1 ± 17.9,p = 0.003)或 ACI(82.6 ± 17.0 vs. 72.8 ± 16.0,p = 0.021),M-ACI 和 ABG 组合在 36 个月时的 KOOS 都明显高于单纯的 M-ACI。与初次M-ACI相比,二次骨移植可使患者7年存活率相同(83% vs. 84%,p = n.s.):结论:无论既往CR的类型如何,与单纯M-ACI相比,二次M-ACI的额外骨移植可改善临床结果、反应率和36个月的存活率。使用 ABG 的二次 M-ACI 的临床反应率和存活率与一次 M-ACI 相当。因此,即使在翻修M-ACI中出现轻度骨质受累的病例,也应治疗软骨下骨:证据等级:三级。
Secondary matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation after failed cartilage repair shows superior results when combined with autologous bone grafting: Findings from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU).
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether additive autologous bone grafting (ABG) improves clinical outcome and survival in revision matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (M-ACI) after failed cartilage repair (CR).
Methods: A retrospective, registry-based, matched-pair analysis was performed to compare patient-reported outcomes and survival in secondary M-ACI with or without additional bone grafting for focal full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee and to compare it with those in primary M-ACI. Patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index, defect size and localization, and number of previous CRs. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was assessed over a follow-up period of 36 months. The patient acceptable symptomatic state, the clinical response rate and the survival of the subgroups were determined.
Results: A total of 818 patients were matched. Revision M-ACI (n = 238) with concomitant bone grafting was associated with significantly higher PRO as measured by KOOS (80.8 ± 16.8 vs. 72.0 ± 17.5, p = 0.032) and higher CRR (81.4% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.018) at 36 months compared to patients with revision M-ACI alone. KOOS and KOOS improvement in these patients did not differ from those who underwent primary M-ACI (p = n.s.). The combination of M-ACI and ABG resulted in a significantly higher KOOS at 36 months than M-ACI alone, regardless of whether bone marrow stimulation (89.6 ± 12.5 vs. 68.1 ± 17.9, p = 0.003) or ACI (82.6 ± 17.0 vs. 72.8 ± 16.0, p = 0.021) was performed before. Additional bone grafting results in equivalent survival rates at 7 years in secondary compared to primary M-ACI (83% vs. 84%, p = n.s.).
Conclusions: Regardless of the type of previous CR, additional bone grafting in secondary M-ACI improves the clinical outcome, response rate and survival at 36 months compared to M-ACI alone. Secondary M-ACI with ABG had comparable clinical response and survival rates to primary M-ACI. Therefore, subchondral bone should be treated even in cases of mild bone involvement in revision M-ACI.