Abstract

Osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) is a well-established procedure for patients with symptomatic cartilage defects in the knee. Revision to OCA after prior failed cartilage repair has shown similar clinical outcomes as primary OCA; however, most of the failed procedures were arthroscopic procedures for smaller defects. There is no literature investigating the clinical outcomes after OCA for prior failed autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) for the treatment of large chondral defects of the knee. The purpose of this study was therefore to determine clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision to OCA after prior failed ACI as compared with a matched cohort of patients undergoing OCA as a primary cartilage repair procedure (primary OCA). In this review of prospectively collected data, we analyzed data from 26 patients with at least 2 years follow-up. Thirteen patients who underwent revision to OCA after prior failed ACI by a single surgeon were compared with a matched group of patients who underwent primary OCA. The patients were matched per age, gender, body mass index, and defect size. Patient-reported outcomes, reoperations, and survival rates were compared between groups. There were no significant differences in patient-reported clinical outcome scores between the groups at final follow-up. Moreover, there was no significant difference in reoperation rates and survival rates between the groups. The present study demonstrates that revision to OCA is a viable treatment option with favorable functional outcomes and similar reoperation and survival rate as primary OCA even for revision of large chondral defects previously treated with ACI.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.