Author's Reply

Abstract

We would like to thank Dr. Kircher for the comments on our article on glenohumeral joint preservation.1Elser F. Braun S. Dewing C.B. Millett P.J. Glenohumeral joint preservation: Current options for managing articular cartilage lesions in young, active patients.Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: 685-696Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (53) Google ScholarKircher J. Patzer T. Magosch P. Lichtenberg S. Habermeyer P. Osteochondral autologous transplantation for the treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects of the shoulder: Results at nine years.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91: 499-503PubMed Google Scholar We are glad that Dr. Kircher enjoyed our work and believe that it provided an up-to-date summary of current approaches to the treatment of cartilage lesions in the shoulder. It is correct that Kircher et al. published a more recent follow-up on osteochondral autologous transplantation in the shoulder for the same series of patients (with one lost to follow-up) as published by Scheibel et al.2Scheibel M. Bartl C. Magosch P. Lichtenberg S. Habermeyer P. Osteochondral autologous transplantation for the treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects of the shoulder.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86: 991-997Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar in 2004. We would like to apologize for not having cited both reports, but the 2009 article1Elser F. Braun S. Dewing C.B. Millett P.J. Glenohumeral joint preservation: Current options for managing articular cartilage lesions in young, active patients.Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: 685-696Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (53) Google ScholarKircher J. Patzer T. Magosch P. Lichtenberg S. Habermeyer P. Osteochondral autologous transplantation for the treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects of the shoulder: Results at nine years.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91: 499-503PubMed Google Scholar was likely published during the editorial processing of our article. The conclusions drawn in our article, however, remain unchanged. We agree with Dr. Kircher that the significant increase in osteoarthritic changes may reflect the natural course of the underlying disease. From a scientific standpoint, we hope that this observation, which we have also made, can be supported with further studies that look at the natural history and clinical course of cartilage lesions and osteoarthritis in the shoulder. We would also like to encourage investigators to continue to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new cartilage repair and restorative strategies in the shoulder and publish their findings. We again thank Dr. Kircher for his comments and moreover thank him, Dr. Habermeyer, and their whole team in Heidelberg for their wonderful contributions. Comments on Glenohumeral Joint PreservationArthroscopyVol. 27Issue 2PreviewI am writing in reference to the recently published review by Elser et al.,1 “Glenohumeral joint preservation: Current options for managing articular cartilage lesions in young, active patients.” The authors give a comprehensive and excellent overview of this topic. Concerning treatment options, the section on osteochondral autologous transplantation cites the report of a small clinical series in 2004.2 However, in 2009 the 9-year results of the same series were published.3 The patients in that series continued to have a remarkable benefit from the procedure both subjectively (all patients were pain free and would have undergone the procedure again) and objectively (increased Constant scores and range of motion) without significant comorbidity (excellent Lysholm scores maintained in all patients). Full-Text PDF