Cartilage restoration of patellofemoral lesions: a systematic review

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Andrade, R.
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Nunes, J., Hinckel, B. B., Gruskay, J., Vasta, S., Bastos, R., Oliveira, Joaquim M., Reis, R. L., Gomoll, A. H., Espregueira-Mendes, João
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