Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic review
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/1822/66375 |
Resumo: | Purpose This study aimed to systematically analyze the postoperative clinical, functional, and imaging outcomes, complications, reoperations, and failures following patellofemoral cartilage restoration surgery. Methods This review was conducted according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to August 31, 2018, to identify clinical studies that assessed surgical outcomes of patellofemoral cartilage restoration surgery. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Results Forty-two studies were included comprising 1,311 knees (mean age of 33.7 years and 56% males) and 1,309 patellofemoral defects (891 patella, 254 trochlear, 95 bipolar, and 69 multiple defects, including the patella or trochlea) at a mean follow-up of 59.2 months. Restoration techniques included autologous chondrocyte implantation (56%), particulated juvenile allograft cartilage (12%), autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (9%), osteochondral autologous transplantation (9%), and osteochondral allograft transplantation (7%). Significant improvement in at least one score was present in almost all studies and these surpassed the minimal clinically important difference threshold. There was a weighted 19%, 35%, and 6% rate of reported complications, reoperations, and failures, respectively. Concomitant patellofemoral surgery (51% of patients) mostly did not lead to statistically different postoperative outcomes. Conclusion Numerous patellofemoral restoration techniques result in significant functional improvement with a low rate of failure. No definitive conclusions could be made to determine the best surgical technique since comparative studies on this topic are rare, and treatment choice should be made according to specific patient and defect characteristics. |
id |
RCAP_2d8f83cb9801a2271df1bc5470d352cb |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/66375 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic reviewcartilagechondralOsteochondralpatellofemoralrestorationScience & TechnologyPurpose This study aimed to systematically analyze the postoperative clinical, functional, and imaging outcomes, complications, reoperations, and failures following patellofemoral cartilage restoration surgery. Methods This review was conducted according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to August 31, 2018, to identify clinical studies that assessed surgical outcomes of patellofemoral cartilage restoration surgery. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Results Forty-two studies were included comprising 1,311 knees (mean age of 33.7 years and 56% males) and 1,309 patellofemoral defects (891 patella, 254 trochlear, 95 bipolar, and 69 multiple defects, including the patella or trochlea) at a mean follow-up of 59.2 months. Restoration techniques included autologous chondrocyte implantation (56%), particulated juvenile allograft cartilage (12%), autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (9%), osteochondral autologous transplantation (9%), and osteochondral allograft transplantation (7%). Significant improvement in at least one score was present in almost all studies and these surpassed the minimal clinically important difference threshold. There was a weighted 19%, 35%, and 6% rate of reported complications, reoperations, and failures, respectively. Concomitant patellofemoral surgery (51% of patients) mostly did not lead to statistically different postoperative outcomes. Conclusion Numerous patellofemoral restoration techniques result in significant functional improvement with a low rate of failure. No definitive conclusions could be made to determine the best surgical technique since comparative studies on this topic are rare, and treatment choice should be made according to specific patient and defect characteristics.SAGE PublicationsUniversidade do MinhoAndrade, R.Nunes, J.Hinckel, B. B.Gruskay, J.Vasta, S.Bastos, R.Oliveira, Joaquim M.Reis, R. L.Gomoll, A. H.Espregueira-Mendes, João20212021-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/1822/66375engAndrade, R., Nunes, J., Hinckel, B. B., Gruskay, J., Vasta, S., Bastos, R., Oliveira, J. M., Reis, R. L., Gomoll, A. H., & Espregueira-Mendes, J. (2021). Cartilage Restoration of Patellofemoral Lesions: A Systematic Review. CARTILAGE, 57S-73S. https://doi.org/10.1177/19476035198930761947-603510.1177/194760351989307631845590https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1947603519893076info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-21T12:27:51Zoai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/66375Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T19:22:33.346778Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic review |
title |
Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic review |
spellingShingle |
Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic review Andrade, R. cartilage chondral Osteochondral patellofemoral restoration Science & Technology |
title_short |
Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic review |
title_full |
Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic review |
title_fullStr |
Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed |
Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic review |
title_sort |
Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic review |
author |
Andrade, R. |
author_facet |
Andrade, R. Nunes, J. Hinckel, B. B. Gruskay, J. Vasta, S. Bastos, R. Oliveira, Joaquim M. Reis, R. L. Gomoll, A. H. Espregueira-Mendes, João |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Nunes, J. Hinckel, B. B. Gruskay, J. Vasta, S. Bastos, R. Oliveira, Joaquim M. Reis, R. L. Gomoll, A. H. Espregueira-Mendes, João |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade do Minho |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Andrade, R. Nunes, J. Hinckel, B. B. Gruskay, J. Vasta, S. Bastos, R. Oliveira, Joaquim M. Reis, R. L. Gomoll, A. H. Espregueira-Mendes, João |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
cartilage chondral Osteochondral patellofemoral restoration Science & Technology |
topic |
cartilage chondral Osteochondral patellofemoral restoration Science & Technology |
description |
Purpose This study aimed to systematically analyze the postoperative clinical, functional, and imaging outcomes, complications, reoperations, and failures following patellofemoral cartilage restoration surgery. Methods This review was conducted according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to August 31, 2018, to identify clinical studies that assessed surgical outcomes of patellofemoral cartilage restoration surgery. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Results Forty-two studies were included comprising 1,311 knees (mean age of 33.7 years and 56% males) and 1,309 patellofemoral defects (891 patella, 254 trochlear, 95 bipolar, and 69 multiple defects, including the patella or trochlea) at a mean follow-up of 59.2 months. Restoration techniques included autologous chondrocyte implantation (56%), particulated juvenile allograft cartilage (12%), autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (9%), osteochondral autologous transplantation (9%), and osteochondral allograft transplantation (7%). Significant improvement in at least one score was present in almost all studies and these surpassed the minimal clinically important difference threshold. There was a weighted 19%, 35%, and 6% rate of reported complications, reoperations, and failures, respectively. Concomitant patellofemoral surgery (51% of patients) mostly did not lead to statistically different postoperative outcomes. Conclusion Numerous patellofemoral restoration techniques result in significant functional improvement with a low rate of failure. No definitive conclusions could be made to determine the best surgical technique since comparative studies on this topic are rare, and treatment choice should be made according to specific patient and defect characteristics. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021 2021-01-01T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/1822/66375 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/1822/66375 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Andrade, R., Nunes, J., Hinckel, B. B., Gruskay, J., Vasta, S., Bastos, R., Oliveira, J. M., Reis, R. L., Gomoll, A. H., & Espregueira-Mendes, J. (2021). Cartilage Restoration of Patellofemoral Lesions: A Systematic Review. CARTILAGE, 57S-73S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603519893076 1947-6035 10.1177/1947603519893076 31845590 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1947603519893076 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
SAGE Publications |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
SAGE Publications |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799132695971758080 |