Skip to main content
main-content

20.11.2019 | Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine | Ausgabe 2/2020

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2/2020

Focal metallic inlay resurfacing prosthesis in articular cartilage defects: short-term results of 118 patients and 2 different implants

Zeitschrift:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery > Ausgabe 2/2020
Autoren:
Şahin Çepni, Enejd Veizi, Mesut Tahta, Enes Uluyardımcı, Mohammed J. T. Abughalwa, Çetin Işık
Wichtige Hinweise

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abstract

Background

The goal of this study was to share our experience with two different inlay metallic implants in the treatment of knee cartilage defects and to analyze their effects on functional scores.

Methods

This retrospective study included 118 patients operated on for focal full-thickness knee cartilage lesions, who were treated with a focal metallic inlay resurfacing prosthesis. A cobalt–chromium (Co–Cr) resurfacing implant was applied to 73 patients with a knee chondral lesion, and a biosynthetic implant was applied to 45. All patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using the KOOS, VAS, and Tegner activity scores.

Results

The group with the Co–Cr-resurfacing implant showed a significantly greater improvement (p < 0.001) in the Tegner and VAS scores at the 2-year follow-up examination. The KOOS scores were similar in both groups. Median patient age was similar in both groups. All patients had a follow-up of at least 2 years. The preoperative and postoperative scores were compared and significant improvements (p < 0.001) were observed. The biosynthetic implant had a higher revision rate. In the univariate analysis, age and type of implant were significantly associated with revision surgery. In the multivariate Cox-regression analysis model, the type of implant was significantly associated with revision surgery.

Conclusion

All the patients operated with the above-mentioned implants showed significant improvements in pain and activity scores. Despite the overall good clinical results, 17% of patients with a biosynthetic implant and > 6% of patients with Co–Cr-resurfacing implant required revision surgery. Age and implant type were the main risk factors associated with revision.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2/2020 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise