Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 139, Issue 8, pp 1117–1123 | Cite as

Clinical outcomes and survival rate of autologous chondrocyte implantation with and without concomitant meniscus allograft transplantation: 10- to 15-year follow-up study

  • Kyoung Ho Yoon
  • Se Gu Kang
  • Yoo Beom Kwon
  • Eung Ju Kim
  • Sang-Gyun KimEmail author
Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and survival rate of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) with or without concomitant meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT).

Methods

Patients who underwent ACI of the medial or lateral femoral condyle with or without concomitant MAT were retrospectively reviewed. There were 14 patients (mean age, 31.2 ± 9.9 years) who underwent isolated ACI and 19 patients who underwent ACI with concomitant MAT (mean age, 34.8 ± 8.4 years). The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, and 10- to 15-year survival rate were compared between groups.

Results

All clinical scores showed significant improvement postoperatively in both groups. At final follow-up, the IKDC subjective score was superior in isolated ACI (75.8 ± 18.4) compared to ACI with MAT (61.0 ± 16.6, p = 0.024). The Lysholm score was also higher in isolated ACI (77.5 ± 19.1) than ACI with MAT (62.5 ± 18.1, p = 0.029). The Tegner activity score did not differ between treatments (isolated ACI, 5.3 ± 1.1; ACI with MAT, 4.5 ± 1.3; p = 0.072). The 15-year survival rate for isolated ACI was higher than that of ACI with concomitant MAT (69.6% vs 50.2%), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.19).

Conclusions

ACI with concomitant MAT did not restore clinical outcomes as much as isolated ACI. There was a trend for the long-term survival rate to be greater in isolated ACI than ACI with MAT. These results should be considered in planning for the treatment of focal chondral defect with meniscus deficiency.

Level of study

Retrospective comparative trial; level of evidence, 3.

Keywords

Autologous chondrocyte implantation Meniscus allograft transplantation Clinical outcomes Survival rate 

Notes

Funding

There is no funding source.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained by the ethics committee of Kyung Hee University Hospital (IRB Number: KHUH 2018-04-042).

References

  1. 1.
    Bhosale AM, Myint P, Roberts S et al (2007) Combined autologous chondrocyte implantation and allogenic meniscus transplantation: a biological knee replacement. Knee 14(5):361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biçer EK, Aydoğdu S, Sur H (2016) The structure, function, and healing of the meniscus musculoskeletal research and basic science. Springer, Berlin, pp 405–427Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bode G, von Heyden J, Pestka J et al (2015) Prospective 5-year survival rate data following open-wedge valgus high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(7):1949–1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farr J, Rawal A, Marberry KM (2007) Concomitant meniscal allograft transplantation and autologous chondrocyte implantation: minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 35(9):1459–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frank RM, Lee S, Cotter EJ, Hannon CP, Leroux T, Cole BJ (2018) Outcomes of osteochondral allograft transplantation with and without concomitant meniscus allograft transplantation a comparative matched group analysis. Am J Sports Med 46(3):573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gersoff WK (2002) Combined meniscal allografttransplantation and autologous chiondrocyte implantation. Oper Tech Sports Med 10(3):165–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Getgood A, Gelber J, Gortz S, De Young A, Bugbee W (2015) Combined osteochondral allograft and meniscal allograft transplantation: a survivorship analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(4):946–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris JD, Cavo M, Brophy R, Siston R, Flanigan D (2011) Biological knee reconstruction: a systematic review of combined meniscal allograft transplantation and cartilage repair or restoration. Arthroscopy 27(3):409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris JD, Hussey K, Wilson H et al (2015) Biological knee reconstruction for combined malalignment, meniscal deficiency, and articular cartilage disease. Arthroscopy 31(2):275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris JD, McNeilan R, Siston RA, Flanigan DC (2013) Survival and clinical outcome of isolated high tibial osteotomy and combined biological knee reconstruction. Knee 20(3):154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10(3):150–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mina C, Garrett WE Jr, Pietrobon R, Glisson R, Higgins L (2008) High tibial osteotomy for unloading osteochondral defects in the medial compartment of the knee. Am J Sports Med 36(5):949–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Minas T, Von Keudell A, Bryant T, Gomoll AH (2014) The John Insall Award: a minimum 10-year outcome study of autologous chondrocyte implantation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(1):41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD (2016) Long-term survivorship and function of meniscus transplantation. Am J Sports Med 44(9):2330–2338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ogura T, Bryant T, Minas T (2016) Biological knee reconstruction with concomitant autologous chondrocyte implantation and meniscal allograft transplantation: mid- to long-term outcomes. Orthop J Sports Med 4(10):2325967116668490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ogura T, Mosier BA, Bryant T, Minas T (2017) A 20-year follow-up after first-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation. Am J Sports Med 45(12):2751–2761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rue JP, Yanke AB, Busam ML, McNickle AG, Cole BJ (2008) Prospective evaluation of concurrent meniscus transplantation and articular cartilage repair: minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 36(9):1770–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith NA, Parkinson B, Hutchinson CE, Costa ML, Spalding T (2016) Is meniscal allograft transplantation chondroprotective? A systematic review of radiological outcomes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(9):2923–2935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spahn G, Plettenberg H, Hoffmann M, Klemm HT, Brochhausen-Delius C, Hofmann GO (2017) The frequency of cartilage lesions in non-injured knees with symptomatic meniscus tears: results from an arthroscopic and NIR- (near-infrared) spectroscopic investigation. Arch Ortho Trauma Surg 137(6):837–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoon KH, Lee SH, Park SY, Kim HJ, Chung KY (2014) Meniscus allograft transplantation: a comparison of medial and lateral procedures. Am J Sports Med 42(1):200–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKyung Hee University HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations