Advertisement

Bone block augmentation from the iliac crest for treatment of deep osteochondral defects of the knee resembles biomechanical properties of the subchondral bone

  • S. Grechenig
  • Michael WorlicekEmail author
  • R. Penzkofer
  • F. Zeman
  • R. Kujat
  • P. Heiss
  • G. Pattappa
  • J. Zellner
  • P. Angele
KNEE
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Bone block augmentation from the iliac crest can be used for reconstruction of the osteochondral unit to restore the underlying subchondral bone upon restoration of the cartilaginous layer via matrix-induced chondrocyte transplantation. To critically understand the successful restoration of the defect, biomechanical and histological analysis of the implanted bone blocks is required. The aim of the study was to analyse the ability of the bone block technique to restore huge bone defects by mimicking the physiological subchondral zone.

Methods

The experiments were performed using lateral femoral condyles and iliac crest bone grafts from the same cadavers (n = 6) preserved using the Thiel method. CT scans were made to evaluate bone pathology. Bone mineral density of all specimens was evaluated in the femoral head prior to testing. A series of tests were conducted for each pair of specimens. A static compression test was performed using an electro dynamic testing machine with maximal strength and failure behavior analyzed. Biomechanical tests were performed in the medial–lateral direction for iliac crest and for femoral condyles with and without removal of the cartilage layer. Histological analysis was performed on decalcified specimens for comparison of the condyle at lesion site and the graft.

Results

No significant difference in failure load could be found for iliac crest (53.3–180.5 N) and femoral condyle samples upon cartilage removal (38.5–175.1 N) (n.s.). The femoral condyles with an intact cartilage layer showed significantly higher loads (118.3–260.4N) compared to the other groups indicating that native or regenerated cartilage can further increase the failure load (p < 0.05). Bone mineral density significantly influenced failure load in all study groups (p < 0.05). Histological similarity of the cancellous bone in the femoral condyle and in the iliac crest was observed. However, within the subchondral zone, there was a higher density of sponge like organized trabeculae in the bone samples from the iliac crest. Tide mark was only detected at the osteochondral interface in femoral condyles.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that, bone blocks derived from the iliac crest allow a biomechanical appropriate and stable restoration of huge bony defects by resembling the subchondral zone of the femoral condyle. Therefore, bone augmentation from the iliac crest combined with matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte transplantation seems to be a reasonable method to treat these challenging injuries.

Keywords

Osteochondral defects Bone block augmentation Cancellous bone grafting Chondrocyte transplantation 

Notes

Funding

The authors are not compensated and there are no institutional subsidies, corporate affiliations, or funding sources supporting this work unless clearly documented and disclosed. The cadaveric specimens were donated by the anatomical institute in Graz. All donors gave their informed consent within the donation of anatomical gift statement during their lifetime.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

According to Austrian law the specimen donors gave their informed consent to science during live time at the Universital Medical Center of Graz, so no IRB approval was necessary.

References

  1. 1.
    Aldrian S, Zak L, Wondrasch B, Albrecht C, Stelzeneder B, Binder H et al (2014) Clinical and radiological long-term outcomes after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte transplantation: a prospective follow-up at a minimum of 10 years. Am J Sports Med 42:2680–2688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angele P, Fritz J, Albrecht D, Koh J, Zellner J (2015) Defect type, localization and marker gene expression determines early adverse events of matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation. Injury 46(Suppl 4):S2–S9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bentley G, Biant LC, Vijayan S, Macmull S, Skinner JA, Carrington RW (2012) Minimum ten-year results of a prospective randomised study of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for symptomatic articular cartilage lesions of the knee. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94:504–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebraheim NA, Yang H, Lu J, Biyani A, Yeasting RA (1997) Anterior iliac crest bone graft. Anatomic considerations. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 22:847–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gomoll AH, Madry H, Knutsen G, van Dijk N, Seil R, Brittberg M et al (2010) The subchondral bone in articular cartilage repair: current problems in the surgical management. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:434–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grimm NL, Weiss JM, Kessler JI, Aoki SK (2014) Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: pathoanatomy, epidemiology, and diagnosis. Clin Sports Med 33:181–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gudas R, Simonaityte R, Cekanauskas E, Tamosiunas R (2009) A prospective, randomized clinical study of osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of osteochondritis dissecans in the knee joint in children. J Pediatr Orthop 29:741–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hangody L, Kish G, Karpati Z, Udvarhelyi I, Szigeti I, Bely M (1998) Mosaicplasty for the treatment of articular cartilage defects: application in clinical practice. Orthopedics 21:751–756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Konst YE, Benink RJ, Veldstra R, van der Krieke TJ, Helder MN, van Royen BJ (2012) Treatment of severe osteochondral defects of the knee by combined autologous bone grafting and autologous chondrocyte implantation using fibrin gel. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2263–2269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ochs BG, Muller-Horvat C, Albrecht D, Schewe B, Weise K, Aicher WK et al (2011) Remodeling of articular cartilage and subchondral bone after bone grafting and matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. Am J Sports Med 39:764–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ohman C, Dall’Ara E, Baleani M, Van Sint Jan S, Viceconti M (2008) The effects of embalming using a 4% formalin solution on the compressive mechanical properties of human cortical bone. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 23:1294–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orth P, Cucchiarini M, Kohn D, Madry H (2013) Alterations of the subchondral bone in osteochondral repair—translational data and clinical evidence. Eur Cell Mater 25:299–316 (discussion 314-296) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Orth P, Madry H (2015) Complex and elementary histological scoring systems for articular cartilage repair. Histol Histopathol 30:911–919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orth P, Peifer C, Goebel L, Cucchiarini M, Madry H (2015) Comprehensive analysis of translational osteochondral repair: focus on the histological assessment. Prog Histochem Cytochem 50:19–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thiel W (1992) The preservation of the whole corpse with natural color. Ann Anat 174:185–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Unger S, Blauth M, Schmoelz W (2010) Effects of three different preservation methods on the mechanical properties of human and bovine cortical bone. Bone 47:1048–1053CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vijayan S, Bartlett W, Bentley G, Carrington RW, Skinner JA, Pollock RC et al (2012) Autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral lesions in the knee using a bilayer collagen membrane and bone graft: a two- to eight-year follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94:488–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zak L, Aldrian S, Wondrasch B, Albrecht C, Marlovits S (2012) Ability to return to sports 5 years after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation in an average population of active patients. Am J Sports Med 40:2815–2821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zellner J, Grechenig S, Pfeifer CG, Krutsch W, Koch M, Welsch G et al (2017) Clinical and radiological regeneration of large and deep osteochondral defects of the knee by bone augmentation combined with matrix-guided autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Am J Sports Med 45:3069–3080CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinic of Trauma SurgeryUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Engineering and TechnologyUniversity of Applied Sciences RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  3. 3.Centre for Clinical StudiesUniversity Hospital RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  4. 4.Clinic of RadiologyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations