• Arthroscopy · Sep 2005

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    A prospective randomized clinical study of mosaic osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of osteochondral defects in the knee joint in young athletes.

    • Rimtautas Gudas, Romas J Kalesinskas, Vytautas Kimtys, Edgaras Stankevicius, Vytautas Toliusis, Giedrius Bernotavicius, and Alfredas Smailys.
    • Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Kaunas University Hospital, Kaunas, Lithuania. rimtautasg@yahoo.com
    • Arthroscopy. 2005 Sep 1; 21 (9): 1066-75.

    PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of mosaic-type osteochondral autologous transplantation (OAT) and microfracture (MF) procedures for the treatment of the articular cartilage defects of the knee joint in young active athletes.Type Of StudyProspective randomized clinical study.MethodsBetween 1998 and 2002, a total of 60 athletes with a mean age of 24.3 years (range, 15 to 40 years) and with a symptomatic lesion of the articular cartilage in the knee were randomized to undergo either an OAT or an MF procedure. Only those athletes playing in competitive sports at regional or national levels were included in the study. Fifty-seven athletes (95%) were available for a follow-up. There were 28 athletes in the OAT group and 29 athletes in the MF group. The mean duration of symptoms was 21.32 +/- 5.57 months and the mean follow-up was 37.1 months (range, 36 to 38 months), and none of the athletes had prior surgical interventions to the affected knee. Patients were evaluated using modified Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) and International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) scores, radiograph, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and clinical assessment. An independent observer performed a follow-up examination after 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. At 12.4 months postoperatively, arthroscopy with biopsy for histologic evaluation was carried out. A radiologist and a pathologist, both of whom were blinded to each patient's treatment, did the radiologic and histologic evaluations.ResultsAfter 37.1 months, both groups had significant clinical improvement (P < .05). According to the modified HSS and ICRS scores, functional and objective assessment showed that 96% had excellent or good results after OAT compared with 52% for the MF procedure (P < .001). At 12, 24, and 36 months after surgery, the HSS and ICRS showed statistically significantly better results in the OAT group (P = .03; P = .006; P = .006). Younger athletes did better in both groups. No serious complications were reported. There was 1 failure in the OAT group and 9 in the MF group. The ICRS Cartilage Repair Assessment for macroscopic evaluation during arthroscopy at 12.4 months showed excellent or good repairs in 84% after OAT and in 57% after MF. Biopsy specimens were obtained from 58% of the patients and histologic evaluation of repair showed better scores (according to ICRS) for the OAT group (P < .05). MRI evaluation showed excellent or good repairs in 94% after OAT compared with 49% after MF. Twenty-six (93%) OAT patients and 15 (52%) MF patients returned to sports activities at the preinjury level at an average of 6.5 months (range, 4 to 8 months). Others showed a decline in sports activity level.ConclusionsAt an average of 37.1 months (range, 36 to 38 months) follow-up, our prospective, randomized, clinical study in young active athletes under the age of 40 has shown significant superiority of OAT over MF for the repair of articular cartilage defects in the knee. We found that only 52% of MF athletes could return to sports at the preinjury level. Limitations of our study included a small number of athletes and a relatively short (3-year) follow-up. A long-term follow-up is needed to assess the durability of articular cartilage repair using these methods in young active athletes.Level Of EvidenceLevel I, Therapeutic study, randomized controlled trial, significant difference (a).

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.