Advertisement

Emerging Concepts in Treating Cartilage, Osteochondral Defects, and Osteoarthritis of the Knee and Ankle

  • Hélder Pereira
  • Ibrahim Fatih Cengiz
  • Carlos Vilela
  • Pedro L. Ripoll
  • João Espregueira-Mendes
  • J. Miguel Oliveira
  • Rui L. Reis
  • C. Niek van Dijk
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1059)

Abstract

The management and treatment of cartilage lesions, osteochondral defects, and osteoarthritis remain a challenge in orthopedics. Moreover, these entities have different behaviors in different joints, such as the knee and the ankle, which have inherent differences in function, biology, and biomechanics. There has been a huge development on the conservative treatment (new technologies including orthobiologics) as well as on the surgical approach. Some surgical development upraises from technical improvements including advanced arthroscopic techniques but also from increased knowledge arriving from basic science research and tissue engineering and regenerative medicine approaches. This work addresses the state of the art concerning basic science comparing the knee and ankle as well as current options for treatment. Furthermore, the most promising research developments promising new options for the future are discussed.

Keywords

Surgery Autologous osteochondral transplantation Bone marrow stimulation Congruency Alignment Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine 

Highlights

  • The treatment of osteochondral defects and osteoarthritis is complex and multifactorial.

  • The most commonly used surgical techniques for the treatment of osteochondral defects include microfractures, fixation, autologous or allogeneic osteochondral transplantation or mosaicplasty autologous chondrocyte implantation, and matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation. So far, no method has been able to consistently achieve repair of osteochondral defects similar to the native tissue.

  • Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine strategies promise new options for future treatments of cartilage and osteochondral defects.

Top 10 Suggested References

  1. 1.

    Dahmen J, Lambers KTA, Reilingh ML, van Bergen CJA, Stufkens SAS, Kerkhoffs Gino MMJ (2017) No superior treatment for primary osteochondral defects of the talus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4616-5 [Epub ahead of print]

     
  2. 2.

    Oliveira M, Reis RL (2017) Regenerative strategies for the treatment of knee joint disabilities. Studies in mechanobiology, tissue engineering and biomaterials. Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44785-8

     
  3. 3.

    Ferreira C, Vuurberg G, Oliveira JM, Espregueira-Mendes J, H. P, Reis RL, Ripoll P (2016) Assessment of clinical outcome after Osteochondral Autologous Transplantation technique for the treatment of ankle lesions: a systematic review. J Isakos. doi:jisakos-2015-000020.R2

     
  4. 4.

    Andrade R, Vasta S, Papalia R, Pereira H, Oliveira JM, Reis RL, Espregueira-Mendes J (2016) Prevalence of articular cartilage lesions and surgical clinical outcomes in football (Soccer) players’ knees: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 32(7):1466–1477. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.055

     
  5. 5.

    Oliveira JM, Rodrigues MT, Silva SS, Malafaya PB, Gomes ME, Viegas CA, Dias IR, Azevedo JT, Mano JF, Reis RL (2006) Novel hydroxyapatite/chitosan bilayered scaffold for osteochondral tissue-engineering applications: scaffold design and its performance when seeded with goat bone marrow stromal cells.

     
  6. 6.

    Yan LP, Silva-Correia J, Oliveira MB, Vilela C, Pereira H, Sousa RA, Mano JF, Oliveira AL, Oliveira JM, Reis RL (2015) Bilayered silk/silk-nanoCaP scaffolds for osteochondral tissue engineering: in vitro and in vivo assessment of biological performance. Acta Biomaterialia 12:227–241. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.10.021

     
  7. 7.

    Khan WS, Longo UG, Adesida A, Denaro V (2012) Stem cell and tissue engineering applications in orthopaedics and musculoskeletal medicine. Stem Cells Int 2012:403170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/403170

     
  8. 8.

    Correia SI, Silva-Correia J, Pereira H, Canadas RF, da Silva Morais A, Frias AM, Sousa RA, van Dijk CN, Espregueira-Mendes J, Reis RL, Oliveira JM (2015) Posterior talar process as a suitable cell source for treatment of cartilage and osteochondral defects of the talus. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/term.2092

     
  9. 9.

    Liu M, Zeng X, Ma C, Yi H, Ali Z, Mou X, Li S, Deng Y, He N (2017) Injectable hydrogels for cartilage and bone tissue engineering. Bone Res 5:17014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/boneres.2017.14

     
  10. 10.

    Rai V, Dilisio MF, Dietz NE, Agrawal DK (2017) Recent strategies in cartilage repair: a systemic review of the scaffold development and tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A 105(8):2343–2354. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.36087

     

Fact Box 1 – Epidemiology of Osteoarthritis and Osteochondral Injuries of the Knee and Ankle

  • Osteoarthritis is the most common joint disease with worldwide prevalence over 241 825 million people.

  • The overall prevalence of full-thickness focal chondral defects in athletes has been stated as 36%.

  • Osteochondral defects of the knee combined with meniscus injuries account for 3.7% of all injuries among elite football players.

  • The incidence of OA in the ankle is considerably smaller than in the knee. The prevalence of symptomatic primary OA in the ankle is lower than 1% of the population.

  • Moreover, ankle OA does not seem to increase with aging.

  • Osteochondral defects of the talus can occur in up to 70% of acute ankle sprains and fractures.

Fact Box 2 – Osteochondral Defects (OCDs) of the Knee

  • The treatment of OCDs and OA of the knee is complex and multifactorial.

  • Nonoperative options include chondroprotective pharmacotherapy (glucosamines, chondroitin, diacerein, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma, and cell-based therapy), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication, and physiotherapy.

  • The most commonly used surgical techniques for the treatment of knee OCD lesions include microfractures, fixation, autologous (or allogenic) osteochondral transplantation (OATS) or mosaicplasty autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), and matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI).

  • So far, no method has been able to consistently achieve repair of OCD by the hyaline cartilage similar to the native.

Fact Box 3 – Osteochondral Defects (OCDs) of the Ankle

  • Etiology of ankle OCD can either be traumatic and non-traumatic.

  • Always consider association of ankle sprain or chronic ankle instability in the etiology of OCD.

  • Fixation of a large fragment should always be attempted.

  • Microfracture is still the most popular treatment.

  • Similarly to that observed in the knee, no surgical treatment has proven superiority over any other.

  • Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine approaches promise new options for the future.

Fact Box 4 – Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine (TERM): Road for the Future

  • The basic triad of TERM includes the combination of cells, scaffolds, and bioactive proteins in the healing process of any tissue.

  • Orthobiologics might include conservative treatment by injection therapy including growth factors, hydrogels, cell-based therapy, or even combining gene therapy.

  • Orthobiologics aim to improve symptomatic cartilage damage and also envision to delay the progressive joint degeneration.

  • There has been a massive development on scaffolds assembling including nanostructure and tridimensional bioprinting.

  • The road for the future seems to combine the best possible knowledge of all TERM variables aiming to achieve in the laboratory a tissue which can be matured to achieve similar features as the native and custom-made to the defect.

2.1 Introduction

Traumatic and non-traumatic etiology has been implicated in osteochondral injuries, which might or might not develop to general joint degeneration [1]. Degeneration linked to the aging process, trauma-related injuries, and deteriorating or idiopathic disorders might lead to osteochondral lesions [2]. Cartilage damage has been linked to several etiologies including some, which remain poorly understood to date. It is recognized that OA has a higher incidence in aged people [3]. However, the prevalence of articular cartilage injuries has been reported to be higher in athletes when compared to the general population [4, 5, 6, 7]. Sports practice has been increasing worldwide. Taking as an example football (soccer), which is the most played sport worldwide, there are more than 300 million people federated and many more playing without register [8]. Any high-impact contact sport, moreover at high competitive level, might result in damage of the knee and/or structures, including articular cartilage injuries [4, 5, 9]. The large variability of the OA regarding the etiology, histological findings between individuals and groups, and response to therapies demonstrates that there is still a long way for more advanced understanding of this condition [10].

Nevertheless, cartilage injuries are often a consequence of dynamic and repetitive mechanical joint loading [11, 12, 13, 14]. Despite the fact that cartilage is a poorly innervated and irrigated tissue when the damage reaches the subchondral bone, complaints will derive [15], including pain, swelling, catching, and locking [5, 16, 17]. Nevertheless, articular cartilage injuries may be present in asymptomatic people or even athletes. There is controversial data concerning the frequency of knee pain referred by footballers [4]. However, patellofemoral conditions are more frequent in women, while in the ankle, the lesion is mostly present at the talus [18].

If a “pure” cartilage lesion is considered, the damage occurs on the chondrocytes and articular cartilage extracellular matrix (ECM), above the subchondral plate. However, in OCDs besides cartilage injury, the subchondral bone is also involved. Many classifications have been proposed either as global OCD assessment or joint-specific scores [1]. The Outerbridge classification modified by the ICRS (International Cartilage Repair Society) is the one that most frequently used. In brief, it enrolls Grade 0, normal cartilage; Grade I, cartilage softening and swelling; Grade II, partial thickness defect not extending the subchondral bone (<1.5 cm diameter); Grade III, fissures up to the subchondral bone level (>1.5 cm diameter); and Grade IV, OCD with exposed subchondral bone. In some cases of non-traumatic etiology, usually in younger ages, in which a segment of cartilage and subchondral bone detaches from the underlying bone, a vascular or genetic etiology has been proposed, and it is referred to as osteochondritis dissecans [19]. If complete detachment of osteochondritis dissecans occurs, this might lead to intra-articular loose bodies, which further contribute to joint degeneration.

One of the major concerns related to OCDs is the secondary progression to OA [19]. However, it could never have been shown in the ankle joint that the natural history of a focal OCD is secondary OA, while most studies in the knee joint suggest it [1]. This might be related to different joint biomechanics. However, an injury to the hyaline cartilage that is related to a previous trauma is considered as a major risk factor for OA [20]. OA can be a restrictive and painful condition, which is most frequently seen in the knees, hips, ankles, and hands although it might affect any joint. Patients suffering from OA characteristically present pain, episodes of swelling, progressive deformity, and limited range of motion.

OCDs or any cartilage damage, if not adequately dealt with, may result to an earlier onset of joint degradation and osteoarthritis (OA) [21, 22, 23]. Symptomatic OCDs in any joint may lead to activity-related symptoms and require changes in lifestyle with permanent functional limitations [24, 25, 26, 27]. Besides cartilage damage, injuries affecting the subchondral bone are frequent. However, it is still debatable whether these changes precede the biomechanical lesions of the hyaline cartilage or correspond to secondary changes.

Conservative treatments are based on the adaptation of lifestyle, anti-inflammatory or painkiller medications, supplements (e.g., glucosamine, chondroitin), and orthobiologics (hyaluronic acid, growth factors, cell therapies) [10, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32]. Surgical treatment ranges from arthroscopy to osteotomies, to partial or total joint replacement or fusion [10, 28, 29, 31]. Clinical history, physical examination, and imaging (standing x-rays, CT, or MRI) are mandatory for diagnosis [19, 31]. For histological assessment in specific cases or research purposes, it is possible to collect tissue and synovial fluid from joint injections of the knee or ankle without major complications [33]. This is particularly useful in rheumatologic conditions.

According to the current reports, OA has been affecting a significant number of people worldwide with a rise over time, and it represents a social and economic burden [34, 35]. Moreover, high-level sports involve high financial impact and intense social media coverage. Considering the athlete as a usually “young person” with a physically demanding profession, important factors such as age, level of completion, time into the season, and career status must be considered [4]. Therefore, dealing with OCDs and OA is a multifactorial social issue.

2.2 Epidemiology

OA is the most common joint disease [36]. It is not easy to define the global prevalence of OA, given the registered variations according to the used definition of OA for assessment, population characteristics (e.g., age, gender), geographic conditions, clinical-based or radiological-based studies, or self-reported OA [36]. One study reports the worldwide prevalence of clinical OA of 241 825 million people [34]. This number is known to be consecutively growing. The number of people with symptomatic OA has increased 71.9% between 1990 and 2013, and it is expected to keep rising in relation to the increase of life expectancy, among other factors [37, 38]. In Europe, the frequency of symptomatic knee OA is ranging between 5.4% and 29.8% [36]. According to the Framingham study and Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project, in the United States, this number was 7% and 17%, respectively [36]. When considering only a population over 45 years old, the OA prevalence ranged from 19% to 28% [36]. Flanigan et al. reported articular cartilage injuries in a cohort of 931 athletes, involving 732 men and 199 women, with a mean age of 33 years old [5]. The overall prevalence of full-thickness focal chondral defects of the knee in athletes was 36% [5]. From these, only 40% were professional athletes. The UEFA Elite Club Injury Study Group (which studies health conditions of 29 elite European football clubs) in the season of 2015/2016 reported that cartilage/meniscus injuries accounted for 3.7% of all injuries [39].

The incidence of OA in the ankle is considerably smaller than in the knee. The prevalence of symptomatic primary OA in the ankle is lower than 1% of the population [40]. Moreover, it does not seem to increase with aging [40].

Osteochondral defects of the talus can occur in up to 70% of acute ankle sprains and fractures [41]. The different incidences and prevalences of OA on both joints most probably are linked to differences in anatomy and biomechanics [10], but no definite conclusions explaining such differences are currently available.

Genetics or geographical influence might be suggested with an observed extreme variation such as the OA is present in only around 1.4% of the urban Filipinos, and increases among some rural Iranian communities up to 19.3% [42]. Moreover, gender might play a role once a high female predominance has been reported [42], suggesting some role of sex hormones in this condition. With such prevalence and the fact that there is no “cure” up to now, treatment will require continuous clinical care, institutional costs, medication, and surgeries, dictating high healthcare-related costs, besides work absence, thus representing a socioeconomic burden [43, 44]. The global impact on diminished economic productivity added to the reimbursement compensation from the impaired and sometimes the need for third-person care further dictates additional costs [43, 45, 46]. According to a recent systematic review, the social costs of OA range from 0.25% to 0.50% of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) [35]. Considering all the aforementioned, this is one of the most relevant healthcare topics and is critical to improve our effectiveness in dealing with these conditions [47].

2.3 Knee Osteochondral Defects

Normal knee hyaline cartilage has optimum biomechanical characteristics adapted to its function and adjustment capacities to the loading stresses exerted at the joint [48]. Nevertheless, when these capacities are exceeded (e.g., by high-impact loading), there is a decrease in the cartilage proteoglycans levels and an increase in the levels of degradative enzymes (e.g., metalloproteases) that ultimately lead to chondrocyte apoptosis [49, 50]. The consequence will be a loss of cartilage volume and biomechanical resistance, peak contact pressures, and ultimately cartilage defects [48]. Moreover, due to its scarce irrigation and innervation, it has very limited healing potential [25, 29, 51, 52]. Due to these biological and biomechanical conditions, cartilage repair remains a challenge in orthopedics, and so far, there is no single reliable method to achieve repair by hyaline cartilage similar to the native [31].

The first approach employed in the treatment OCDs is a conservative treatment [53]. It includes periods of rest, non-weight bearing, prevention of stiffness by an active joint mobilization, neuro-muscle and proprioceptive trainings, as well as use of medication or orthobiologics [31]. Nonoperative options include chondroprotective pharmacotherapy (glucosamines, chondroitin, diacerein, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma, and cell-based therapy), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication, and physiotherapy [24, 54, 55]. Particularly in the knee joint, conservative treatment often fails, after a variable period of improvement [31, 56]. A substantial number of patients will require surgical management [31].

2.4 State of the Art in the Treatment of Osteochondral Defects of the Knee

The treatment of OCDs and OA of the knee is complex and multifactorial [57]. The goal of treatment is to provide long-lasting relief of complaints and restore function to the maximum possible [4]. The biomechanical features of the knee joint should be considered as complex.

Nowadays, there are several available surgical techniques to approach a focal OCD. The most commonly used surgical techniques for the treatment of these lesions include microfracture (Fig. 2.1), fixation, autologous osteochondral transplantation (OATS) or mosaicplasty autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), and matrix-induced (Fig. 2.2) autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) [4, 52, 58, 59]. More recently, matrix-induced autologous stem cell implantation (MASI) has been introduced given the higher mitotic rate and other biological features of these cells and constructs [60, 61].
Fig. 2.1

Medial condyle grade IV osteochondral defect (A), debridement and microfractures with visible holes on the bone (BD)

Fig. 2.2

Medial condyle unstable osteochondral defect (yellow arrow) (A), bilayered acellular scaffold with cartilage layer (orange arrow) and bone layer (blue arrow) (B), arthroscopy view with removal of the defect and preparing the receptor bone bed by means of a trephine (C), final arthroscopic look of the receptor zone (D), outside view of arthroscopic surgery (E), introduction of the acellular scaffold, (H) final aspect and palpation with a probe of the press-fit scaffold (F, G)

Whenever possible, fixation of a large OCD with underlying bone (Fig. 2.3) should be attempted once it represents the most “conservative” surgical approach given the fact that it aims to preserve the native tissue. This is achieved by lifting the fragment (if possible keeping some partial attachment), preparing the bony beds from both sides (e.g., microfracturing) and fixation with screws or arrows [31]. Arthroscopic debridement and lavage with bone marrow stimulation such as drilling [62], microfracture (promoted by Steadman) [63], abrasion arthroplasty [64], and chondroplasty [65] are the initial surgical strategies. The rationale supporting bone marrow stimulation techniques is that by perforation of the subchondral bone, we create channels enabling the recruitment/migration of blood with growth factors and bone marrow stem cells to the defect site and formation of a stable clot, which fills the chondral defect [66, 67, 68]. Good short-term outcomes have been reported with this technique [69, 70]. Concerning histology, this treatment does not provide hyaline cartilage restoration [71, 72]. This healing process leads to fibrocartilage tissue formation, which has lower biomechanical characteristics and is more likely to break down [63, 73]. This relevant drawback is the main reason for the failure [63, 73]. Deterioration of clinical outcomes at long-term has been described, with revision surgery needed in some cases [74, 75]. Considering this fact, enhanced microfractures techniques have been recently developed with promising short-term outcomes [76, 77, 78].
Fig. 2.3

MRI frontal view of medial condyle unstable osteochondral defect (OCD) with edema around the injury on T2 (A), CT lateral view assessing the underlying bone of the defect (B), outside view of the arthroscopic surgery (C), and OCD fixation with headless compression screw (D)

More complex and anatomic strategies have been developed such as autologous or allogeneic osteochondral grafting, i.e., mosaicplasty technique [79]. Mosaicplasty is being used since 1994 when it was first performed by L. Hangody [80]. The OATS technique is used to transfer autologous (or allogeneic) bone and hyaline cartilage to the defect, providing a stable size-matched osteochondral autograft. For smaller defects, one single plug transfer to fill the defect seems to have advantages over several cylinders [79]. However, for larger defects, the mosaicplasty requires the transfer of multiple small cylinders (osteochondral plugs) to the defect [66, 67]. Nevertheless, this technique has several limitations such as restricted graft disposal and donor site-related morbidity once it creates a defect elsewhere in order to transfer tissue to the defect [81, 82]. Aiming to lower donor site morbidity, the upper tibiofemoral joint has been proposed as a potential donor site [79]. Despite its inherent risks and limitations, transplantation of osteochondral allograft is a viable option to manage larger osteochondral injuries, including those that involve an entire compartment [66, 67, 83].

The ACI approach (promoted by Mats Brittberg) is a two-stage procedure which involves harvesting of autologous chondrocytes on a first procedure, processing these in laboratory, and latterly implanting these cells in the articular cartilage defect aiming to achieve hyaline-like cartilage repair [66, 67, 84, 85, 86]. This procedure expected to accomplish higher longevity of the healed tissue improves long-term clinical and functional outcomes [86, 87]. The initial technique required a periosteal flap to cover the defect (sutured to the surrounding cartilage), and the cells were finally delivered under this coverage with a small needle. However, consistently reproducible results favoring this technique over the others have not been achieved [60, 86].

As a more advanced tissue engineering and regenerative medicine (TERM) approach, the MACI technique is an attractive alternative which involves culturing the chondrocyte cells into a tridimensional porous scaffold which is matured in the laboratory by means of bioreactors and afterward implanted into the defect [66, 67]. The MACI technique is technically less demanding and reduces surgical time, besides avoiding periosteal harvesting [88]. The reported short-to-midterm outcomes show promising results of this technique in articular cartilage injuries of the knee joint [89, 90, 91]. However, using the same principle, stem cells combined with scaffolds (MASI) have been attempted in order to improve the achieved outcome and are under development and research [60]. Some of these TERM-based approaches have been made commercially available or under commercial advertising (Table 2.1). These new techniques aim to be potential efficient options to restore OCDs; however, there is still a lack of evidence-based medicine supporting its widespread use. In the authors’ opinion, it should be kept under strict research control until further conclusions can be obtained. Some of these emerging techniques include autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC™) [92, 93], bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and mesenchymal stem cell-induced chondrogenesis (MCIC™) [94, 95, 96], autologous collagen-induced chondrogenesis (ACIC™) [97, 98], minced cartilage repair (DeNovo NT and CAIS) [99, 100, 101], osteochondral biomimetic scaffolds (MaioRegen®) [102, 103, 104, 105], and hydrogels acting alone or as carriers of cells and/or proteins (BST-CarGel®) [106, 107, 108, 109].
Table 2.1

Commercial available cartilage repair systems

Product name

Main material

Trials

ACI procedures

ChondroCelect®

TiGenix, Leuven, Belgium

10,000 cells/μl suspension (Dulbecco’s modified eagles medium)

First approved cell-based product in Europe

Carticel®

Genzyme Biosurgery, Cambridge, MA

12 million cells suspension

First FDA-approved cell therapy product

Chondro-Gide®

Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switzerland

Collagen

Improved clinical outcome associated to MF or as an ACI procedure

MACI®

Genzyme Biosurgery, Cambridge, MA

Porcine type I/III collagen

Phase III trials

Improved outcome in case series in comparison with OAT and MF

CaReS®

Ars Arthro, Esslingen, Germany

Rat-tail type I collagen

Improved clinical outcomes in a multicenter study with 116 patients/follow-up: 30 months

NeoCart®

Histogenics Corporation, Waltham, MA

Bovine type I collagen

Chondrocyte culture in a bioreactor

Phase III trials

Hyalograft C®

Fidia Advanced Biopolymers, Abano Terme, Italy

HYAFF 11-esterified derivative of hyaluronate

Improved clinical results even when compared with MF

Improved clinical outcome in case series reported in 62 patients/follow-up: 7 years

Cartipatch®

Tissue Bank of France

Agarose-alginate

Phase III trials

Improved clinical outcome in case

series reported in 17 patients/follow-up: 24 months

Bioseed C®

BioTissue

Technologies, GmbH, Freiburg, Germany

Copolymer of PGA, PLA, and PDS – fibrin glue

Phase III trial

Improved clinical outcomes in in case series reported in 52 patient/follow-up: 4 years

BioCart II

ProChon BioTech Ltd., Ness Ziona, Israel

Fibrinogen + hyaluronan

Phase II trial

Improved clinical results in case series reported in 31 patients/follow-up: 17 months

DeNovo ET®

Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana

Matrix + allogenic fetal chondrocytes

Phase III trial

Cartsystem

Sodium hyaluronate + allogeneic umbilical cord MSCs

Phase II trial

Graft

DeNovo NT®

Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana

Matrix + allogenic chondrocytes

Good clinical outcomes in few studies reported

CAIS®

Depuy-Mitek, Raynham MA

Glue + autologous morcelleied cartilage

Phase III trial

Cell-free scaffold

TruFit®

Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA

PLGA-calcium-sulfate biopolymer bilayer porous

Suspended commercialization

BST-CarGel®

Biosyntech, Quebec, Canada

Chitosan + glycerol phosphate

Phase III trial

Better outcomes than MF treatment in a 5-year follow-up

CaReS-1S®

Arthro-Kinetics, Esslingen, Germany

Rat-tail type I collagen

Animal trials

Short case series in adults

MaioRegen®

Fin-Ceramica S.p.A., Faenza, Italy

Hydroxyapatite-collagen 3D tri-layers

Few studies

Reproduced with permission of Springer [60]. Copyright, 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

Correction of malalignment or unloading of an affected compartment by means of the osteotomy (Fig. 2.4) (distal femur or proximal tibia) might favor the biomechanical environment around OCD or unicompartmental OA [110, 111]. Partial or total knee replacement by means of arthroplasty or even fusion in salvage procedures is considered as the last resource [38]. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic OCDs have enabled better clinical outcome [86, 112, 113]. Moreover, several authors advise that early treatment diminishes the risk for additional cartilage degeneration and development of secondary knee OA [9, 14, 25, 62, 86, 112]. Based on current knowledge, the treatment of OCDs relies on the defect’s size, the involvement of the entire osteochondral unit, and the time from injury to repair [114]. Many algorithms for treatment have been proposed [52, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119].
Fig. 2.4

Opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy of the knee (stereoscopy) (A) and calcaneal sliding osteotomy of the ankle (x-ray) (B)

2.5 Ankle Osteochondral Defects

An osteochondral defect (OCD) of the talus is a lesion involving the talus or distal tibia hyaline cartilage and its subchondral bone. Several classifications have been used over time, but the first comes from 1959 from Berndt and Harty [120]. The etiology of OCDs is often a single or repeated traumatic events [121]. However, ankle OCDs might also be idiopathic or non-traumatic [1, 121, 122, 123]. Similar to what happens for the knee joint, there is no single classification system, which fully addresses the topic. The anatomical grid proposed by Raikin and Elias has proven its value by making it possible to describe the location and assist in a preoperative planning [124, 125].

Shearing forces might cause superficial cartilage lesions, without damage to the underlying subchondral plate. However, after a high-impact force or repeated trauma (chronic instability), the underlying bone plate can also be damaged [126]. Ankle trauma related to an OCD frequently progresses to the formation of subchondral bone cysts. These bone cysts, surrounded by nociceptors, cause recurrent deep ankle pain leading to functional limitation. Most OCDs of the talus are found on the anterolateral or posteromedial talar dome [127]. Lateral lesions are usually narrower and oval-shaped and usually are caused by a shear mechanism. On the other hand, medial lesions usually derive from torsional impaction and axial loading, so they are frequently deeper and more cup-shaped [1, 122]. Although an OCD can have an acute onset resulting from trauma, cystic degeneration is a slower process [128]. To date, there is still not a complete understanding of the etiology or the different clinical presentation and response to treatment of ankle OCDs, despite some valid theoretical explanations [1]. While some OCDs remain asymptomatic, others present fast degradation with cyst formation and bone edema [128]. If we could predict or understand the pathogenesis of such differences, we would most likely be more efficient in dealing with this condition. The clinical presentation of a symptomatic OCD is usually deep ankle pain aggravated by effort with recurrent swelling after activity [128].

Some type of trauma is frequently accepted as the principal etiologic factor of an OCD of the talus. Trauma has been implicated in 93–98% of lateral talar defects and 61–70% of medial OCDs [129]. Etiologic factors of an OCD can be traumatic or non-traumatic [1]. Other etiologic possibilities include vascular issues and genetics [122]. Furthermore, OCDs have been found in identical twins and siblings [130] in support of the previous. Moreover, ankle OCDs are bilateral in 10% of patients [131]. Traumatic cartilage lesions of the ankle can be divided as microdamage or blunt trauma, chondral fractures (sparing the underlying bone), and osteochondral fractures [132].

Ankle sprains or chronic ankle instability is an important cause of traumatic ankle OCDs [133]. This seems to be the most frequent cause of these conditions. When the talus is inverted between the tibial plafond, medial and lateral malleoli linked by syndesmotic ligaments (the ankle mortice), the cartilage of the talus can be crushed/fractured (causing a loose body) and cause a cartilage crack or delamination, or an underlying bone bruise. Shearing forces might cause separation in the superficial layer of the cartilage [1]. OCDs might remain stable or become unstable which aggravates progression to further joint damage [1]. In testing conditions, it has been possible to reproduce lateral ankle OCD defects by intensely inverting a dorsiflexed ankle (while the foot is inverted, the lateral border of the talar dome is smashed against the fibula while the lateral ligament is ruptured). During application of excessive inverting force, the talus rotated laterally in the frontal plane within the mortise thus impacting and compressing the lateral talar margin against the articular surface of the fibula. This mechanism leads to a lateral talar OCD. A medial lesion was reproduced by plantarflexing the ankle while applying slight anterior displacement of the talus on the tibia, inversion and internal rotation of the talus on the tibia [1, 120]. Considering the previous one can assume that the treatment of ankle OCD without management of chronic ankle instability is extremely difficult and prone to failure. For this reason, one major advance in the treatment of ankle OCDs has been the concomitant arthroscopic approach of cartilage defects and lateral ligament’s repair [134].

2.6 State of the Art in the Treatment of Osteochondral Defects of the Ankle

Asymptomatic incidental findings of the ankle are not infrequent, including within athletic population [135]. As aforementioned, ankle OCDs are frequently secondary to trauma, usually a consequence of ankle sprains during sports or chronic ankle instability. The available treatment options are basically similar to those on the knee. Asymptomatic OCDs can be dealt conservatively: physiotherapy, medication, orthobiologics, periods of rest, or immobilization (e.g., orthoses or walker boot) [121, 127]. However, we advise for surveillance of such injuries. Presently, there is no evidence-based or consensus in the literature concerning the superiority of any surgical treatment over another either in primary or secondary ankle OCDs [127, 136]. The final therapeutic decision relies on the patient profile and expectations as well as some characteristics of the lesion.

Preoperative planning is critical and should always include weight-bearing x-rays for alignment evaluation and global joint assessment. MRI can overestimate the size of the OCD by the presence of bone edema (usually reflects local biological activity, mostly visible in T2 sequences) surrounding the injury. The CT provides a more reliable assessment of bony defect size and volume. Additionally, CT on lateral view in plantar flexion or dorsiflexion is helpful to decide for the most advantageous anterior or posterior arthroscopic approach in a given case or even if an open approach is required (medial malleolar osteotomy for medial defects or lateral ligament detachment and afterward reinsertion for lateral defects). The arthroscopic approach is currently the preferred and most frequently used for both anterior and posterior compartments [137]. The authors advise for not using fixed distraction once this lowers the percentage of complications [138]. Moreover, as aforementioned, arthroscopy enables simultaneous treatment of concomitant pathologies (including instability) whenever required. Excision, curettage, and bone marrow stimulation techniques (ECBMS – excision of OCD fragment, curettage of subchondral bone with drilling or microfractures) aim to achieve fibrocartilaginous tissue formation which is still the less invasive surgical approach [136]. Satisfactory results with minimal aggression can be obtained depending on the patient profile and injury characteristics, and ECBMS can also be considered in bigger lesions unable for fixation or even secondary injuries. ECBMS is considered in most cases given the outcome possibilities and lower aggression and cost. A lower percentage of good/excellent results is to be expected in larger lesions and revision surgery [136].

Preserving the native tissue by the “lift, drill, fill, and fix” surgery should be preferred whenever possible since it provides the preservation of the most of native tissue [139]. Lift the defect, drill by making microfracture or bone marrow stimulation, fill the defect with bone graft, and fix the fragment with metallic or bioabsorbable screws or pins (Fig. 2.5). This can be done fully arthroscopically in some cases or require open surgery on others. Retrograde drilling (Fig. 2.6) to decompress secondary cystic lesions linked to an OCD, and sometimes filling with bone graft, is a valid option for large cystic lesions [127]. OATS has some possible indications, but the high chance of complications must be acknowledged [82].
Fig. 2.5

Talar osteochondral defect with surrounding cystic lesions on CT (A), lifting of the defect on open surgery leaving partial attachment (B), filling of the defect with bone autograft after drilling (C), fixation of fragment with compression screw (D), and final x-ray look (E)

Fig. 2.6

Distal osteochondral defect (OCD) of medial malleolus – MRI view (A), CT view of the OCD with a small opening enabling fluid to get into the cyst (red arrow) (B), arthroscopic view of the cartilage small opening enabling fluid to get into the cyst (C), use of MicroVector guide for retrograde drilling to reach the defect under radioscopy control (D), outside view of the guide and drilling of a bone tunnel during arthroscopy (E), the arthroscope is introduced into the bone tunnel (osteoscopy) together with instruments for curettage of the cyst (F), inside view of the cyst from the arthroscope (G), bone autograft harvesting from distal tibia (H), the bone autograft is impacted into the defect (I), and two compression screws are included for extra support and compression to enhance healing (J, K)

The osteochondral autologous transplantation surgery (OATS) technically (Fig. 2.7) is very similar to what is done in the knee joint. However, for most ankle lesions, it will require harvesting osteochondral cylinders from the knee to fill an ankle defect. Although the promoters state high rate of a successful outcome, a systematic review has shown that this technique has a considerable amount of complications [82]. This must be considered by doctors and patients.
Fig. 2.7

After harvested, the osteochondral autograft is removed from the trephine used to collect it (A), aspect of the harvested autograft including fresh hyaline cartilage, subchondral bone and cancellous bone (B), arthroscopic view of a cylinder in place at 1-year follow-up (C)

Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine (TERM) approaches promise a better and broader option for the future. However, similarly to what has been observed in the knee, cell-based therapies, scaffolds, and augmentation with hydrogels, despite very promising, so far, have not been able to provide consistently better results. Considering the former, and their higher cost, they are valid options for revision surgeries or large injuries without possibility for fixation and not amenable by any of the previous techniques, and as an approach to primary ankle OCD, we advise to keep this technology under research and controlled conditions before its extensive advertising [108, 109, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154]. When all biology-based surgical treatments fail, partial medial talar dome replacement by a metallic implant (Hemicap®) (Fig. 2.8) has provided positive midterm results [155]. Biomechanics remains a pillar of orthopedics. So improving the load distribution and joint alignment by means of osteotomy has proven positive effects either isolated or in combination with other procedures [28, 156]. The goal is to unload the most affected part while distributing forces to the most preserved part of the joint. Ankle fusion or ankle arthroplasty represents the last resource when dealing with very symptomatic OCDs or ankle OA [28].
Fig. 2.8

Surgical view of the Hemicap® implant (A) and x-ray view of the implanted Hemicap® (B)

2.7 Joint Anatomy, Congruency , Alignment, and Osteochondral Lesions

There are important anatomic and biomechanical differences between the knee and ankle joints, which might help to enlighten some aspects related to pathophysiology and treatment. Opposing to the ankle, the knee joint has two menisci which function as fibrocartilaginous dampers (dispersers of load), which assist in compensation on the basic incongruence of the knee joint. Menisci help to adjust the incongruity between the tibial plateau and the femoral condyles. Moreover, they increase the articulating joint surfaces, consequently reducing the load on the entire joint surface.

Another aspect is that the cartilage thickness is quite different among them. The common cartilage thickness of the talus is 1–1.7 mm, while in the knee joint, it ranges from 1 to 6 mm, depending on the location [157]. Moreover, the mechanical properties including stiffness of the talar cartilage are much more constant in the main loading area, while in the knee joint, the cartilage’s properties are much more heterogeneous [158].

At higher loads, the ankle becomes a fully congruent joint [158]. The ankle has a smaller contact area than the knee in loading conditions. The contact area in the ankle at 500 N axial load is 350 mm [159, 160, 161] compared to 1120 mm2 in the knee [162]. Therefore, it might be concluded that the total load and the load peaks in the ankle are higher than in the knee due to the smaller contact areas and the lack of damping structures. The constant hydrostatic pressure within a congruent joint like the ankle causes a permanent fluid pressure toward the subchondral plate. When the cartilage envelope of the joint is interrupted due to cartilage lesion, hydrostatic pressure might lead to secondary osteolysis and cyst formation (Fig. 2.9) [1].
Fig. 2.9

Schematic comparison of the deformation of the cartilage in a congruent (ankle) and incongruent (knee) joint before, during, and after loading. Arrows = direction of water. (Reproduced from van Dijk et al. [1])

The anatomical features, as well as the biomechanical differences alone, fail to explain the higher frequency of OA of the knee. Among the factors that lead to the onset and progression of OA, traumatic injuries of joint structures, as they occur in intra-articular fractures, have a critical role. A traumatic injury to the articular surface results in an immediate loss of biological features and biomechanical function [1]. A biochemical damage also occurs after trauma with loss of matrix components which might influence the risk of OA [163]. Sprains of the knee and ankle joints are among the most common injuries in sports. This can cause ligament injuries, meniscus tears (in the knee), and cartilage and bone lesions with varying degrees of severity which might be implicated in cartilage damage and OA risk.

Osteotomy is a surgery in which the bones are cut and their alignment changed with subsequent biomechanical implications in all joints. Osteotomy around the knee alters the alignment of the knee. Weight bearing will be shifted from the affected segment to a healthier part of the knee. By “unloading” the damaged cartilage, osteotomy may decrease pain, improve function, slow the joint degeneration, and possibly avoid or delay the need for (partial or) total knee replacement surgery [111].

Despite some methodological limitations on the available literature, it has been shown that valgus high tibial osteotomy reduces pain and improves function in patients with medial compartmental osteoarthritis of the knee [111]. So far, the results do not justify a conclusion on the benefit of any specific high tibial osteotomy technique for knee osteoarthritis over another [111].

Corrective ankle osteotomies enroll periarticular osteotomies of either the fibula, distal tibial metaphysis, or distal tibial metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction. Osteotomies are indicated under the presence of angular, rotational, or translational malalignment [164, 165]. Various types of realignment surgery are employed to preserve the ankle joint in cases of intermediate ankle arthritis with a partial joint space narrowing. Promising results considering pain, function, and imaging have been reported [165]. In conclusion, improvement of biomechanical environment might be helpful alone or in combination with any other “biological” treatment in either knee or ankle joints.

2.8 Current and Future Perspectives

2.8.1 Injections and Other Therapies with Growth Factors and/or Stem Cells

The orthobiologics approach, including anabolic proteins (growth factors (GFs)) [148, 166, 167, 168] and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) [144, 154, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175] with or without hydrogels (e.g., hyaluronic acid, collagen, chitosan-based) [140, 150, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181], represents a step forward on conservative or minimally invasive therapy of both OCDs and OA.

The capacity for tissue repair is influenced by GFs, which have functions like chemotaxis, cell differentiation, proliferation, and cellular responses, which may potentially improve tissue healing (including the cartilage and bone). Therefore, the use of autologous and recombinant GFs is evolving in several fields of orthopedics. However, we need to fine-tune this technology in order to have adequate GFs acting in each tissue in proper time. As an example, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), a source of a cocktail of several autologous GFs, cannot be all things to all tissues. PRP is obtained from patient’s own blood (autologous), and GFs from alpha granules of platelets become available after the platelet activation procedure. The next step will be to customize PRP for specific indications, an innovative and potentially rewarding concept [182]. The goal is to manipulate GFs and secretory proteins aiming for both cartilage and bone repair at the same time for an OCD. Many questions remain to be answered, including therapy timing (when to start therapy, how many applications, and for how long); which type of preparation, volume, or dose; and frequency of treatment [182, 183, 184]. It is difficult to compare clinical outcome PRP since there are many different methods for preparation that provide different products, for instance, regarding the GF and leukocyte concentration [168, 185].

The most widely used GFs are bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) and PRP [145, 167, 172]. GFs can also be genetically modified to improve its function or even use gene therapy to increase expression of a specific GF if needed for tissue healing [145, 186]. Another promising field is the use of stem cell-based therapies. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have differentiation competence for mesodermal lineages [187]. The modulation of adult MSC pathways can lead to chondro-, osteo-, and adipogenesis (chondrocytes, osteoblasts, and adipocytes, respectively) [188, 189]. The therapeutic possibilities of their use are extraordinary.

MSCs can be isolated from different tissues such as the bone marrow, skin, fat, synovia, and muscles, or from aspirates such as the bone marrow, adipose-derived [95, 169, 190, 191, 192]. MSCs allow its transplantation without provoking an immune response [193]. Depending on its source, MSCs show different performances. Bone marrow stem cells are still the most studied ones [194]. Bone marrow aspirates from the iliac crest have been used to treat chondral lesions and OCDs [195, 196, 197, 198]. After harvesting by means of aspiration, MSCs might either be submitted to laboratory expansion within 2–3 weeks for subsequent use or the aspirate itself after concentration (centrifugation) can be immediately implanted. Moreover, in advanced TERM strategies, they might be combined with GFs, platelet-rich fibrin gel [95, 197, 199, 200, 201], fibrin glue [196] collagen gel [195, 196, 199, 200, 202] or collagen [95, 195, 196, 203] and HA [197, 199, 200, 202] scaffolds, among others [60, 204].

MSC-based treatment of focal chondral lesions and OCDs has shown promising clinical outcome in both the knee [95, 196, 197, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208] and ankle [199, 200, 202] joints. Some reports of hyaline cartilage repair have been recently presented [209]. Moreover, a cryopreserved form of human amniotic membrane and umbilical cord (hAMUC) fetal tissues has been proposed for osteochondral injuries. These tissues have unique proteins and growth factors in the extracellular matrix and have shown to modulate inflammation, reducing adhesion and scar formation while encouraging regenerative healing [210]. Despite the very limited clinical experience, this possibility is under commercial promotion already (Amniox® ). Hydrogels function by their own properties (rheological, anti-inflammatory, lubrication), but they may also function in combination of GS and/or MSCs as well as promising scaffolds which might also enable control of neovascularization process (of particular relevance concerning hyaline cartilage) [150, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181]

2.8.2 Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Approaches

The combination of the TERM triad (cells, scaffolds, and GFs) despite remaining a challenge is still the main goal in any tissue repair [209, 211, 212, 213, 214]. Moreover, the possibility of one-step procedures for full OCD repair remains a major goal to fasten recovery process and avoid comorbidity and costs. Such approach has been attempted with some success [195, 199, 215, 216]. Giannini et al. [199] combined BMC and PRP gel with HA membrane or collagen powder to treat talar OCDs with positive short-term results. Moreover, histological biopsies have shown hyaline-like cartilage [199, 216].

The use of multilayered scaffolds facilitates the regeneration of the native tissue with hyaline cartilage and subchondral bone [103, 153, 204, 209, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221]. However, in respect for biology and the complex chain of events leading to tissue repair, enhancing scaffolds with cells and/or growth factors seems theoretically more promising in any tissue as suggested by clinical and basic science research [214, 221, 222]. The final goal of TERM [211, 223] is to develop an effective scaffold that is seeded with suitable cells and growth factors and matured in the laboratory with the use of bioreactors, and accomplishing a tissue that would be suitable for clinical implantation with similar characteristics to the native one.

Nanotechnology seems a promising field once we can use nanoparticles to deliver proteins and/or cells in different layers of a given scaffold aiming to influence the healing of different tissues according to its needs [217, 224, 225]. Moreover, it enables to label stem cells and influences their behavior in the biologic environment [226]. Similarly, this can be used for bioactive proteins [227, 228, 229]. Besides, some authors suggest that nanoscale fibrous scaffold architecture is crucial in promoting and maintaining chondrogenic differentiation [230].

A multilayered collagen-based scaffold has been developed including the use of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles, which might enhance bone integration [103]. Another silk-based nanofibrous and nanocomposite bilayer scaffold used calcium-phosphate nanoparticles [217]. Some authors proposed bilayer scaffolds including microspheres with TGF-β for chondrogenic differentiation and BMP-2 for osteogenic differentiation [231], and several other improvements are under development [232]. Moreover, the combination of specific hydrogels or even gene therapy [233] can further enhance this process for future clinical use [153, 179, 234]. Another very promising possibility for TERM approaches is the possibility for three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting techniques which enable to fabricate injury-specific implants [235, 236, 237, 238]. This is particularly helpful in the geometrically difficult parts of joints. 3D bioprinting can be used to produce custom-made, regenerative constructs for tissue repair [237]. 3D bioprinting techniques permit incorporation of cells and bioactive molecules during the fabrication process in order to create biologically active implants [237]. The outer shape of the construct can be made accordingly to the patient’s defect based on CT and/or MRI images of the lesion. Moreover, it enables to achieve more complex zonally organized osteochondral constructs by printing with multiple bio-inks [237]. A large number of possibilities exist including hybrid printing such as thermoplastic polymers and hydrogels or incorporation of electrospun meshes in hydrogels, nanoparticles with cells, and/or bioactive molecules to optimize biomechanical and biological capacities of the construct [237].

2.9 Final Remarks

Cartilage or osteochondral defects are very frequent injuries affecting millions of people worldwide. Development of osteoarthritis (OA) is a relevant socioeconomic burden, which requires more effective possibilities for treatment. OA is more frequent in the knee than in the ankle. Most ankle OCDs are linked with the consequence of traumatic events and ankle sprains (which is one of the most frequent injuries in sports). The knee and ankle have different biological and biomechanical features, which help to understand some differences in physiopathology and response to treatment. However, a lot of further research is required in this setting. Conservative treatment remains the first option in treatment in most OCDs or OA. In this field, the development of orthobiologics (injectable hydrogels, growth factors, cell-based therapies, and so forth) has provided new options for some patients. Concerning surgical treatment, technical developments have been improving the outcome of classical approaches such as bone marrow stimulation techniques. Autologous osteochondral transplantation, despite remaining a valid option, has been linked with the significant amount of complications, which must be acknowledged. The first generation of autologous chondrocyte transplantation has not achieved the expected results. The use of acellular scaffolds has been under intense research and development. The combination and use of cells, growth factors, and cells in advanced TERM approaches promise to improve future outcome. Joint realignment by means of osteotomies is also a valid surgical tool, both in the knee and the ankle. Joint replacement offers many different possibilities including partial replacement. Results of different techniques are not the same in the knee and the ankle, which seem to be multifactorial. The road for the future will upraise most probably from TERM approaches including gene therapy, nanotechnology, and custom-made implants.

References

  1. 1.
    van Dijk CN, Reilingh ML, Zengerink M, van Bergen CJ (2010) Osteochondral defects in the ankle: why painful? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(5):570–580.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1064-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hunter DJ (2009) Risk stratification for knee osteoarthritis progression: a narrative review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 17(11):1402–1407.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gelber AC, Hochberg MC, Mead LA, Wang NY, Wigley FM, Klag MJ (2000) Joint injury in young adults and risk for subsequent knee and hip osteoarthritis. Ann Intern Med 133(5):321–328PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrade R, Vasta S, Papalia R, Pereira H, Oliveira JM, Reis RL, Espregueira-Mendes J (2016) Prevalence of articular cartilage lesions and surgical clinical outcomes in football (soccer) players’ knees: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 32(7):1466–1477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flanigan DC, Harris JD, Trinh TQ, Siston RA, Brophy RH (2010) Prevalence of chondral defects in athletes’ knees: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42(10):1795–1801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Årøen A, Løken S, Heir S, Alvik E, Ekeland A, Granlund OG, Engebretsen L (2004) Articular cartilage lesions in 993 consecutive knee arthroscopies. Am J Sports Med 32(1):211–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curl WW, Krome J, Gordon ES, Rushing J, Smith BP, Poehling GG (1997) Cartilage injuries: a review of 31,516 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy 13(4):456–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mithoefer K, Peterson L, Saris D, Mandelbaum B, Dvorák J (2012) Special issue on articular cartilage injury in the football (soccer) player. Cartilage 3(1 suppl):4S–5SPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mithoefer K, Steadman RJ (2012) Microfracture in football (soccer) players: a case series of professional athletes and systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 3(1 suppl):18S–24SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huch K, Kuettner KE, Dieppe P (1997) Osteoarthritis in ankle and knee joints. Semin Arthritis Rheum 26(4):667–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gomoll A, Filardo G, De Girolamo L, Esprequeira-Mendes J, Marcacci M, Rodkey W, Steadman R, Zaffagnini S, Kon E (2012) Surgical treatment for early osteoarthritis. Part I: cartilage repair procedures. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):450–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krych AJ, Robertson CM, Williams RJ (2012) Return to athletic activity after osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee. Am J Sports Med 40(5):1053–1059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mithoefer K, Della Villa S (2012) Return to sports after articular cartilage repair in the football (soccer) player. Cartilage 3(1 suppl):57S–62SPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mithoefer K, Hambly K, Della Villa S, Silvers H, Mandelbaum BR (2009) Return to sports participation after articular cartilage repair in the knee scientific evidence. Am J Sports Med 37(1 suppl):167S–176SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dvorak J, Peterson L, Junge A, Chomiak J, Graf-Baumann T (2000) Incidence of football injuries and complaints in different age groups and skill-level groups. Am J Sports Med 28(5):51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Messner K, Maletius W (1996) The long-term prognosis for severe damage to weight-bearing cartilage in the knee: a 14-year clinical and radiographic follow-up in 28 young athletes. Acta Orthop 67(2):165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Piasecki DP, Spindler KP, Warren TA, Andrish JT, Parker RD (2003) Intraarticular injuries associated with anterior cruciate ligament tear: findings at ligament reconstruction in high school and recreational athletes an analysis of sex-based differences. Am J Sports Med 31(4):601–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tandoan RN, Mann G, Verdonk R, Doral MN (2012) Sports injuries: prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15630-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bruce EJ, Hamby T, Jones DG (2005) Sports-related osteochondral injuries: clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment. Prim Care 32(1):253–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2004.11.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuettner KE, Cole AA (2005) Cartilage degeneration in different human joints. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 13(2):93–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2004.11.006 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arendt E, Dick R (1995) Knee injury patterns among men and women in collegiate basketball and soccer NCAA data and review of literature. Am J Sports Med 23(6):694–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heijink A, Gomoll AH, Madry H, Drobnič M, Filardo G, Espregueira-Mendes J, Van Dijk CN (2012) Biomechanical considerations in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):423–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vannini F, Spalding T, Andriolo L, Berruto M, Denti M, Espregueira-Mendes J, Menetrey J, Peretti G, Seil R, Filardo G (2016) Sport and early osteoarthritis: the role of sport in aetiology, progression and treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(6):1786–1796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pánics G, Hangody LR, Baló E, Vásárhelyi G, Gál T, Hangody L (2012) Osteochondral autograft and mosaicplasty in the football (Soccer) athlete. Cartilage 3(1 suppl):25S–30SPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steinwachs M, Engebretsen L, Brophy R (2012) Scientific evidence base for cartilage injury and repair in the athlete. Cartilage 3(1 suppl):11S–17SPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Drawer S, Fuller C (2001) Propensity for osteoarthritis and lower limb joint pain in retired professional soccer players. Br J Sports Med 35(6):402–408PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Engström B, Forssblad M, Johansson C, Tornkvist H (1990) Does a major knee injury definitely sideline an elite soccer player? Am J Sports Med 18(1):101–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Badekas T, Takvorian M, Souras N (2013) Treatment principles for osteochondral lesions in foot and ankle. Int Orthop 37(9):1697–1706.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2076-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buckwalter JA (1998) Articular cartilage: injuries and potential for healing. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(4):192–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cengiz IF, Oliveira JM, Ochi M, Nakamae A, Adachi N, Reis RL (2017) “Biologic” treatment for meniscal repair. In: Injuries and health problems in football. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 679–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Martel-Pelletier J, Wildi LM, Pelletier JP (2012) Future therapeutics for osteoarthritis. Bone 51(2):297–311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2011.10.008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weinraub GM (2005) Orthobiologics: a survey of materials and techniques. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 22(4):509–519, v.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpm.2005.08.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Neustadt DH (2006) Intra-articular injections for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cleve Clin J Med 73(10):897–898. 901-894, 906-811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, Arnold LM, Choi H, Deyo RA, Gabriel S, Hirsch R, Hochberg MC, Hunder GG, Jordan JM, Katz JN, Kremers HM, Wolfe F, National Arthritis Data W (2008) Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum 58(1):26–35.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23176 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Puig-Junoy J, Ruiz Zamora A (2015) Socio-economic costs of osteoarthritis: a systematic review of cost-of-illness studies. Semin Arthritis Rheum 44(5):531–541.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2014.10.012 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Neogi T (2013) The epidemiology and impact of pain in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 21(9):1145–1153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.03.018 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Manley M (2011) Current and projected utilization of total joint replacements. Compr Biomater 6:1–9Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lohmander LS (2013) Knee replacement for osteoarthritis: facts, hopes, and fears. Medicographia 35:181–188Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ekstrand J (2016) UEFA Elite Club Injury Study Report 2015/16.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aurich M, Hofmann GO, Rolauffs B, Gras F (2014) Differences in injury pattern and prevalence of cartilage lesions in knee and ankle joints: a retrospective cohort study. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 6(4):5611.  https://doi.org/10.4081/or.2014.5611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hintermann B, Regazzoni P, Lampert C, Stutz G, Gachter A (2000) Arthroscopic findings in acute fractures of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(3):345–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Haq SA, Davatchi F (2011) Osteoarthritis of the knees in the COPCORD world. Int J Rheum Dis 14(2):122–129.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-185X.2011.01615.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bitton R (2009) The economic burden of osteoarthritis. Am J Manag Care 15(8 Suppl):S230–S235PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gupta S, Hawker GA, Laporte A, Croxford R, Coyte PC (2005) The economic burden of disabling hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) from the perspective of individuals living with this condition. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44(12):1531–1537.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kei049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Global Burden of Disease Study C (2015) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2013. Lancet 386(9995):743–800.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hunter DJ, Schofield D, Callander E (2014) The individual and socioeconomic impact of osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 10(7):437–441.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2014.44 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hiligsmann M, Cooper C, Guillemin F, Hochberg MC, Tugwell P, Arden N, Berenbaum F, Boers M, Boonen A, Branco JC, Maria-Luisa B, Bruyere O, Gasparik A, Kanis JA, Kvien TK, Martel-Pelletier J, Pelletier JP, Pinedo-Villanueva R, Pinto D, Reiter-Niesert S, Rizzoli R, Rovati LC, Severens JL, Silverman S, Reginster JY (2014) A reference case for economic evaluations in osteoarthritis: an expert consensus article from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO). Semin Arthritis Rheum 44(3):271–282.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2014.06.005 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mithoefer K, Hambly K, Logerstedt D, Ricci M, Silvers H, Villa SD (2012) Current concepts for rehabilitation and return to sport after knee articular cartilage repair in the athlete. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 42(3):254–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kiviranta I, Tammi M, Jurvelin J, Arokoski J, Säuäumäunen A-M, Helminen HJ (1992) Articular cartilage thickness and glycosaminoglycan distribution in the canine knee joint after strenuous running exercise. Clin Orthop Relat Res 283:302–308Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stefan Lohmander L, Roos H, Dahlberg L, Hoerrner LA, Lark MW (1994) Temporal patterns of stromelysin-1, tissue inhibitor, and proteoglycan fragments in human knee joint fluid after injury to the cruciate ligament or meniscus. J Orthop Res 12(1):21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gomoll AH, Minas T (2014) The quality of healing: articular cartilage. Wound Repair Regen 22(S1):30–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    McAdams TR, Mithoefer K, Scopp JM, Mandelbaum BR (2010) Articular cartilage injury in athletes. Cartilage 1(3):165–179PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Laskin RS (1978) Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(2):182–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Erggelet C, Mandelbaum BR (2008) Principles of cartilage repair. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gorsline RT, Kaeding CC (2005) The use of NSAIDs and nutritional supplements in athletes with osteoarthritis: prevalence, benefits, and consequences. Clin Sports Med 24(1):71–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tamburrino P, Castellacci E (2016) Intra-articular injections of HYADD4-G in male professional soccer players with traumatic or degenerative knee chondropathy. A pilot, prospective study. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 56(12):1534PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hambly K, Silvers HJ, Steinwachs M (2012) Rehabilitation after articular cartilage repair of the knee in the football (soccer) player. Cartilage 3(1 suppl):50S–56SPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bekkers J, de Windt TS, Brittberg M, Saris D (2012) Cartilage repair in football (soccer) athletes what evidence leads to which treatment? A critical review of the literature. Cartilage 3(1 suppl):43S–49SPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Harris JD, Brophy RH, Siston RA, Flanigan DC (2010) Treatment of chondral defects in the athlete's knee. Arthroscopy 26(6):841–852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vilela CA, Correia C, Oliveira JM, Sousa RA, Reis RL, Espregueira-Mendes J (2017) Clinical management of articular cartilage lesions. In: Oliveira M, Reis RL (eds) Regenerative strategies for the treatment of knee joint disabilities. Studies in mechanobiology, tissue engineering and biomaterials. Springer, Cham, pp 29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pereira H, Ripoll L, Oliveira JM, Reis RL, Espregueira-Mendes J, van Dijk C (2016) A engenharia de tecidos nas lesões do desporto. Traumatologia Desportiva. LIDEL, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Blevins FT, Steadman JR, Rodrigo JJ, Silliman J (1998) Treatment of articular cartilage defects in athletes: an analysis of functional outcome and lesion appearance. Orthopedics 21(7):761–767. discussion 767–768PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Steadman JR, Rodkey WG, Rodrigo JJ (2001) Microfracture: surgical technique and rehabilitation to treat chondral defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res ((391 Suppl)):S362–S369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Caffey S, McPherson E, Moore B, Hedman T, Vangsness CT Jr (2005) Effects of radiofrequency energy on human articular cartilage: an analysis of 5 systems. Am J Sports Med 33(7):1035–1039.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546504271965 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Spahn G, Kahl E, Muckley T, Hofmann GO, Klinger HM (2008) Arthroscopic knee chondroplasty using a bipolar radiofrequency-based device compared to mechanical shaver: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16(6):565–573.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0506-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bedi A, Feeley BT, Williams RJ (2010) Management of articular cartilage defects of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(4):994–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Krych AJ, Gobbi A, Lattermann C, Nakamura N (2016) Articular cartilage solutions for the knee: present challenges and future direction. J ISAKOS 1:93–104.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jisakos-2015-000037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mithoefer K, Williams RJ, Warren RF, Potter HG, Spock CR, Jones EC, Wickiewicz TL, Marx RG (2005) The microfracture technique for the treatment of articular cartilage lesions in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(9):1911–1920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gobbi A, Nunag P, Malinowski K (2005) Treatment of full thickness chondral lesions of the knee with microfracture in a group of athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13(3):213–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mithoefer K, McAdams T, Williams RJ, Kreuz PC, Mandelbaum BR (2009) Clinical efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage repair in the knee an evidence-based systematic analysis. Am J Sports Med 37(10):2053–2063PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Upmeier H, Bruggenjurgen B, Weiler A, Flamme C, Laprell H, Willich SN (2007) Follow-up costs up to 5 years after conventional treatments in patients with cartilage lesions of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(3):249–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-006-0182-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Laupattarakasem W, Laopaiboon M, Laupattarakasem P, Sumananont C (2008) Arthroscopic debridement for knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD005118.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005118.pub2
  73. 73.
    Mankin HJ (1982) The response of articular cartilage to mechanical injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(3):460–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bae DK, Song SJ, Yoon KH, Heo DB, Kim TJ (2013) Survival analysis of microfracture in the osteoarthritic knee – minimum 10-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 29(2):244–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Solheim E, Hegna J, Inderhaug E, Øyen J, Harlem T, Strand T (2016) Results at 10–14 years after microfracture treatment of articular cartilage defects in the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(5):1587–1593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Case JM, Scopp JM (2016) Treatment of articular cartilage defects of the knee with microfracture and enhanced microfracture techniques. Sports Med Arthrosc 24(2):63–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Koh Y-G, Kwon O-R, Kim Y-S, Choi Y-J, Tak D-H (2016) Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells with microfracture versus microfracture alone: 2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Arthroscopy 32(1):97–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sofu H, Kockara N, Oner A, Camurcu Y, Issın A, Sahin V (2017) Results of hyaluronic acid-based cell-free scaffold application in combination with microfracture for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the knee: 2-year comparative study. Arthroscopy 33:209–216PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Espregueira-Mendes J, Pereira H, Sevivas N, Varanda P, da Silva MV, Monteiro A, Oliveira JM, Reis RL (2012) Osteochondral transplantation using autografts from the upper tibio-fibular joint for the treatment of knee cartilage lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(6):1136–1142.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-1910-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hangody L, Karpati Z (1994) New possibilities in the management of severe circumscribed cartilage damage in the knee. Magy Traumatol Ortop Kezseb Plasztikai Seb 37(3):237–243PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Andrade R, Vasta S, Pereira R, Pereira H, Papalia R, Karahan M, Oliveira JM, Reis RL, Espregueira-Mendes J (2016) Knee donor-site morbidity after mosaicplasty – a systematic review. J Exp Orthop 3(1):31.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-016-0066-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ferreira C, Vuurberg G, Oliveira JM, Espregueira-Mendes J, Pereira, H, Reis RL, Ripoll P (2016) Assessment of clinical outcome after osteochondral autologous transplantation technique for the treatment of ankle lesions: a systematic review. JISAKOS. doi:jisakos-2015-000020.R2Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    De Caro F, Bisicchia S, Amendola A, Ding L (2015) Large fresh osteochondral allografts of the knee: a systematic clinical and basic science review of the literature. Arthroscopy 31(4):757–765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Brittberg M, Lindahl A, Nilsson A, Ohlsson C, Isaksson O, Peterson L (1994) Treatment of deep cartilage defects in the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation. N Engl J Med 331(14):889–895.  https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199410063311401 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Roberts S, McCall IW, Darby AJ, Menage J, Evans H, Harrison PE, Richardson JB (2002) Autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage repair: monitoring its success by magnetic resonance imaging and histology. Arthritis Res Ther 5(1):1Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Peterson L, Vasiliadis HS, Brittberg M, Lindahl A (2010) Autologous chondrocyte implantation a long-term follow-up. Am J Sports Med 38(6):1117–1124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Tom Minas MDM, Arvind Von Keudell M, 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):41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Bartlett W, Gooding C, Carrington R, Skinner J, Briggs T, Bentley G (2005) Autologous chondrocyte implantation at the knee using a bilayer collagen membrane with bone graft. Bone Joint J 87(3):330–332Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Meyerkort D, Ebert JR, Ackland TR, Robertson WB, Fallon M, Zheng M, Wood DJ (2014) Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) for chondral defects in the patellofemoral joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(10):2522–2530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Basad E, Wissing FR, Fehrenbach P, Rickert M, Steinmeyer J, Ishaque B (2015) Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) in the knee: clinical outcomes and challenges. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(12):3729–3735PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ebert JR, Fallon M, Wood DJ, Janes GC (2017) A prospective clinical and radiological evaluation at 5 years after arthroscopic matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation. Am J Sports Med 45(1):59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gille J, Schuseil E, Wimmer J, Gellissen J, Schulz A, Behrens P (2010) Mid-term results of autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis for treatment of focal cartilage defects in the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(11):1456–1464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Lee YHD, Suzer F, Thermann H (2014) Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis in the knee: a review. Cartilage.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603514529445
  94. 94.
    Gobbi A, Karnatzikos G, Sankineani SR (2014) One-step surgery with multipotent stem cells for the treatment of large full-thickness chondral defects of the knee. Am J Sports Med 42(3):648–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Gobbi A, Karnatzikos G, Scotti C, Mahajan V, Mazzucco L, Grigolo B (2011) One-step cartilage repair with bone marrow aspirate concentrated cells and collagen matrix in full-thickness knee cartilage lesions results at 2-year follow-up. Cartilage 2(3):286–299PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Huh SW, Shetty AA, Ahmed S, Lee DH, Kim SJ (2016) Autologous bone-marrow mesenchymal cell induced chondrogenesis (MCIC). J Clin Orthop Trauma 7(3):153–156PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Stelzeneder D, Shetty AA, Kim S-J, Trattnig S, Domayer SE, Shetty V, Bilagi P (2013) Repair tissue quality after arthroscopic autologous collagen-induced chondrogenesis (ACIC) assessed via T2* mapping. Skelet Radiol 42(12):1657–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Shetty AA, Kim SJ, Shetty V, Jang JD, Huh SW, Lee DH (2016) Autologous collagen induced chondrogenesis (ACIC: Shetty–Kim technique) – a matrix based acellular single stage arthroscopic cartilage repair technique. J Clin Orthop Trauma 7(3):164–169PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Harris JD, Frank RM, McCormick FM, Cole BJ (2014) Minced cartilage techniques. Oper Tech Orthop 24(1):27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Farr J, Cole BJ, Sherman S, Karas V (2012) Particulated articular cartilage: CAIS and DeNovo NT. J Knee Surg 25(01):023–030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Farr J, Tabet SK, Margerrison E, Cole BJ (2014) Clinical, radiographic, and histological outcomes after cartilage repair with particulated juvenile articular cartilage: a 2-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514528671
  102. 102.
    Kon E, Delcogliano M, Filardo G, Pressato D, Busacca M, Grigolo B, Desando G, Marcacci M (2010) A novel nano-composite multi-layered biomaterial for treatment of osteochondral lesions: technique note and an early stability pilot clinical trial. Injury 41(7):693–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kon E, Delcogliano M, Filardo G, Busacca M, Di Martino A, Marcacci M (2011) Novel nano-composite multilayered biomaterial for osteochondral regeneration a pilot clinical trial. Am J Sports Med 39(6):1180–1190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Brix M, Kaipel M, Kellner R, Schreiner M, Apprich S, Boszotta H, Windhager R, Domayer S, Trattnig S (2016) Successful osteoconduction but limited cartilage tissue quality following osteochondral repair by a cell-free multilayered nano-composite scaffold at the knee. Int Orthop 40(3):625–632PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Delcogliano M, de Caro F, Scaravella E, Ziveri G, De Biase CF, Marotta D, Marenghi P, Delcogliano A (2014) Use of innovative biomimetic scaffold in the treatment for large osteochondral lesions of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(6):1260–1269PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Hoemann CD, Tran-Khanh N, Chevrier A, Chen G, Lascau-Coman V, Mathieu C, Changoor A, Yaroshinsky A, McCormack RG, Stanish WD (2015) Chondroinduction is the main cartilage repair response to microfracture and microfracture with BST-CarGel results as shown by ICRS-II histological scoring and a novel zonal collagen type scoring method of human clinical biopsy specimens. Am J Sports Med 43(10):2469–2480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Méthot S, Changoor A, Tran-Khanh N, Hoemann CD, Stanish WD, Restrepo A, Shive MS, Buschmann MD (2015) Osteochondral biopsy analysis demonstrates that BST-CarGel treatment improves structural and cellular characteristics of cartilage repair tissue compared with microfracture. Cartilage.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603515595837
  108. 108.
    Shive MS, Stanish WD, McCormack R, Forriol F, Mohtadi N, Pelet S, Desnoyers J, Méthot S, Vehik K, Restrepo A (2015) BST-CarGel® treatment maintains cartilage repair superiority over microfracture at 5 years in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Cartilage 6(2):62–72PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Stanish WD, McCormack R, Forriol F, Mohtadi N, Pelet S, Desnoyers J, Restrepo A, Shive MS (2013) Novel scaffold-based BST-CarGel treatment results in superior cartilage repair compared with microfracture in a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(18):1640–1650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Koshino T, Wada S, Ara Y, Saito T (2003) Regeneration of degenerated articular cartilage after high tibial valgus osteotomy for medial compartmental osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee 10(3):229–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Brouwer RW, Huizinga MR, Duivenvoorden T, van Raaij TM, Verhagen AP, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Verhaar JA (2014) Osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD004019.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004019.pub4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Mithoefer K, Minas T, Peterson L, Yeon H, Micheli LJ (2005) Functional outcome of knee articular cartilage repair in adolescent athletes. Am J Sports Med 33(8):1147–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Mithoefer K, Williams RJ, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, Marx RG (2006) High-impact athletics after knee articular cartilage repair: a prospective evaluation of the microfracture technique. Am J Sports Med 34(9):1413–1418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Bekkers JE, Inklaar M, Saris DB (2009) Treatment selection in articular cartilage lesions of the knee a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 37(1 suppl):148S–155SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    de Windt TS, Saris DB (2014) Treatment algorithm for articular cartilage repair of the knee: towards patient profiling using evidence-based tools. In: Techniques in cartilage repair surgery. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Cole BJ, Pascual-Garrido C, Grumet RC (2009) Surgical management of articular cartilage defects in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(7):1778–1790PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Gomoll AH, Farr J, Gillogly SD, Kercher J, Minas T (2010) Surgical management of articular cartilage defects of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(14):2470–2490PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Tetteh ES, Bajaj S, Ghodadra NS, Cole BJ (2012) The basic science and surgical treatment options for articular cartilage injuries of the knee. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 42(3):243–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Murray IR, Benke MT, Mandelbaum BR (2016) Management of knee articular cartilage injuries in athletes: chondroprotection, chondrofacilitation, and resurfacing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(5):1617–1626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Berndt AL, Harty M (1959) Transchondral fractures (osteochondritis dissecans) of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 41-A:988–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    O'Loughlin PF, Heyworth BE, Kennedy JG (2010) Current concepts in the diagnosis and treatment of osteochondral lesions of the ankle. Am J Sports Med 38(2):392–404.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509336336 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Schachter AK, Chen AL, Reddy PD, Tejwani NC (2005) Osteochondral lesions of the talus. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 13(3):152–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Ventura A, Terzaghi C, Legnani C, Borgo E (2013) Treatment of post-traumatic osteochondral lesions of the talus: a four-step approach. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(6):1245–1250.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2028-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Elias I, Raikin SM, Schweitzer ME, Besser MP, Morrison WB, Zoga AC (2009) Osteochondral lesions of the distal tibial plafond: localization and morphologic characteristics with an anatomical grid. Foot Ankle Int 30(6):524–529.  https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2009.0524 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Elias I, Zoga AC, Morrison WB, Besser MP, Schweitzer ME, Raikin SM (2007) Osteochondral lesions of the talus: localization and morphologic data from 424 patients using a novel anatomical grid scheme. Foot Ankle Int 28(2):154–161.  https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2007.0154 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Vellet AD, Marks PH, Fowler PJ, Munro TG (1991) Occult posttraumatic osteochondral lesions of the knee: prevalence, classification, and short-term sequelae evaluated with MR imaging. Radiology 178(1):271–276.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.178.1.1984319 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Zengerink M, Struijs PA, Tol JL, van Dijk CN (2010) Treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(2):238–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0942-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Durr HD, Martin H, Pellengahr C, Schlemmer M, Maier M, Jansson V (2004) The cause of subchondral bone cysts in osteoarthrosis: a finite element analysis. Acta Orthop Scand 75(5):554–558.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470410001411 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Verhagen RA, Struijs PA, Bossuyt PM, van Dijk CN (2003) Systematic review of treatment strategies for osteochondral defects of the talar dome. Foot Ankle Clin 8(2):233–242. viii–ixPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Woods K, Harris I (1995) Osteochondritis dissecans of the talus in identical twins. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77(2):331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Hermanson E, Ferkel RD (2009) Bilateral osteochondral lesions of the talus. Foot Ankle Int 30(8):723–727.  https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2009.0723 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Frenkel SR, DCP E (1999) Degradation and repair of articular cartilage. Front Biosci 4:671–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    van Dijk CN, Bossuyt PM, Marti RK (1996) Medial ankle pain after lateral ligament rupture. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(4):562–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Pereira H, Vuurberg G, Gomes N, Oliveira JM, Ripoll PL, Reis RL, Espregueira-Mendes J, van Dijk CN (2016) Arthroscopic repair of ankle instability with all-soft knotless anchors. Arthrosc Tech 5(1):e99–e107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2015.10.010 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Saxena A, Luhadiya A, Ewen B, Goumas C (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging and incidental findings of lateral ankle pathologic features with asymptomatic ankles. J Foot Ankle Surg 50(4):413–415.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2011.03.011 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Lambers KTA, Dahmen J, Reilingh ML, van Bergen CJA, Stufkens SAS, Kerkhoffs G (2017) No superior surgical treatment for secondary osteochondral defects of the talus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4629-0
  137. 137.
    van Dijk CN, van Bergen CJ (2008) Advancements in ankle arthroscopy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16(11):635–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Zengerink M, van Dijk CN (2012) Complications in ankle arthroscopy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(8):1420–1431.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2063-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Kerkhoffs GM, Reilingh ML, Gerards RM, de Leeuw PA (2016) Lift, drill, fill and fix (LDFF): a new arthroscopic treatment for talar osteochondral defects. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(4):1265–1271.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3057-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Bhattarai N, Gunn J, Zhang M (2010) Chitosan-based hydrogels for controlled, localized drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 62(1):83–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2009.07.019 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Brittberg M (2010) Cell carriers as the next generation of cell therapy for cartilage repair: a review of the matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation procedure. Am J Sports Med 38(6):1259–1271.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509346395 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Candrian C, Miot S, Wolf F, Bonacina E, Dickinson S, Wirz D, Jakob M, Valderrabano V, Barbero A, Martin I (2010) Are ankle chondrocytes from damaged fragments a suitable cell source for cartilage repair? Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18(8):1067–1076.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2010.04.010 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Caron MMJ, Emans PJ, Coolsen MME, Voss L, Surtel DAM, Cremers A, van Rhijn LW, Welting TJM (2012) Redifferentiation of dedifferentiated human articular chondrocytes: comparison of 2D and 3D cultures. Osteoarthr Cartil 20(10):1170–1178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2012.06.016 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Centeno CJ, Schultz JR, Cheever M, Robinson B, Freeman M, Marasco W (2010) Safety and complications reporting on the re-implantation of culture-expanded mesenchymal stem cells using autologous platelet lysate technique. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther 5(1):81–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Che JH, Zhang ZR, Li GZ, Tan WH, Bai XD, Qu FJ (2010) Application of tissue-engineered cartilage with BMP-7 gene to repair knee joint cartilage injury in rabbits. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(4):496–503.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0962-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Clar C, Cummins E, McIntyre L, Thomas S, Lamb J, Bain L, Jobanputra P, Waugh N (2005) Clinical and cost-effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects in knee joints: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 9(47):iii–iiv. ix–x, 1–82. doi:03-65-01 [pii]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Dhollander AA, De Neve F, Almqvist KF, Verdonk R, Lambrecht S, Elewaut D, Verbruggen G, Verdonk PC (2011) Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis combined with platelet-rich plasma gel: technical description and a five pilot patients report. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(4):536–542.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1337-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    DiGiovanni CW, Lin SS, Baumhauer JF, Daniels T, Younger A, Glazebrook M, Anderson J, Anderson R, Evangelista P, Lynch SE (2013) Recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB and beta-tricalcium phosphate (rhPDGF-BB/beta-TCP): an alternative to autogenous bone graft. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(13):1184–1192.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.01422 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Enea D, Gwynne J, Kew S, Arumugam M, Shepherd J, Brooks R, Ghose S, Best S, Cameron R, Rushton N (2012) Collagen fibre implant for tendon and ligament biological augmentation. In vivo study in an ovine model. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2102-7
  150. 150.
    Gurkan UA, Tasoglu S, Kavaz D, Demirci U (2012) Emerging technologies for assembly of microscale hydrogels. Adv Healthc Mater 1:149–158PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Harris JD, Siston RA, Pan X, Flanigan DC (2010) Autologous chondrocyte implantation: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(12):2220–2233.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00049 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Nagura I, Fujioka H, Kokubu T, Makino T, Sumi Y, Kurosaka M (2007) Repair of osteochondral defects with a new porous synthetic polymer scaffold. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(2):258–264.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B2.17754 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Pereira D, Silva-Correia J, Pereira H, Espregueira-Mendes J, Oliveira JM, Reis RL (2013) Gellan gum-based bilayered scaffolds for application in ostheochondral tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 6(1)Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Vinatier C, Mrugala D, Jorgensen C, Guicheux J, Noel D (2009) Cartilage engineering: a crucial combination of cells, biomaterials and biofactors. Trends Biotechnol 27(5):307–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.02.005 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Ettinger S, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Waizy H, Becher C, Yao D, Claassen L, Noll Y, Plaass C (2017) Results of HemiCAP(R) implantation as a salvage procedure for osteochondral lesions of the talus. J Foot Ankle Surg 56(4):788–792.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2017.04.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Pagenstert GI, Hintermann B, Barg A, Leumann A, Valderrabano V (2007) Realignment surgery as alternative treatment of varus and valgus ankle osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 462:156–168.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e318124a462 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Ateshian GA, Soslowsky LJ, Mow VC (1991) Quantitation of articular surface topography and cartilage thickness in knee joints using stereophotogrammetry. J Biomech 24(8):761–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Swann AC, Seedhom BB (1993) The stiffness of normal articular cartilage and the predominant acting stress levels: implications for the aetiology of osteoarthrosis. Br J Rheumatol 32(1):16–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Kimizuka M, Kurosawa H, Fukubayashi T (1980) Load-bearing pattern of the ankle joint. Contact area and pressure distribution. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 96(1):45–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Beaudoin AJ, Fiore SM, Krause WR, Adelaar RS (1991) Effect of isolated talocalcaneal fusion on contact in the ankle and talonavicular joints. Foot Ankle 12(1):19–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Peyron JG (1984) The epidemiology of osteoarthritis. In: Moskowitz RW, Howell DS, Goldberg VM, Mankin HJ (eds) Osteoarthritis. Diagnosis and treatment. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp S9–27Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Ihn JC, Kim SJ, Park IH (1993) In vitro study of contact area and pressure distribution in the human knee after partial and total meniscectomy. Int Orthop 17(4):214–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Rolauffs B, Muehleman C, Li J, Kurz B, Kuettner KE, Frank E, Grodzinsky AJ (2010) Vulnerability of the superficial zone of immature articular cartilage to compressive injury. Arthritis Rheum 62(10):3016–3027.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.27610 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Roukis TS (2004) Corrective ankle osteotomies. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 21(3):353–370. vi.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpm.2004.03.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Yi Y, Lee W (2017) Peri-talar re-alignment osteotomy for joint preservation in asymmetrical ankle osteoarthritis. EFORT Open Rev 2(7):324–331.  https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.2.160021 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Gomoll AH, Madry H, Knutsen G, van Dijk N, Seil R, Brittberg M, Kon E (2010) The subchondral bone in articular cartilage repair: current problems in the surgical management. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(4):434–447.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1072-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Chen L, Lu X, Li S, Sun Q, Li W, Song D (2012) Sustained delivery of BMP-2 and platelet-rich plasma-released growth factors contributes to osteogenesis of human adipose-derived stem cells. Orthopedics 35(9):e1402–e1409.  https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20120822-29 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Amable PR, Carias RB, Teixeira MV, da Cruz Pacheco I, Correa do Amaral RJ, Granjeiro JM, Borojevic R (2013) Platelet-rich plasma preparation for regenerative medicine: optimization and quantification of cytokines and growth factors. Stem Cell Res Ther 4(3):67.  https://doi.org/10.1186/scrt218 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Im G II, Shin Y-W, Lee K-B (2005) Do adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells have the same osteogenic and chondrogenic potential as bone marrow-derived cells? Osteoarthr Cartil 13(10):845–853.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2005.05.005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Gan Y, Dai K, Zhang P, Tang T, Zhu Z, Lu J (2008) The clinical use of enriched bone marrow stem cells combined with porous beta-tricalcium phosphate in posterior spinal fusion. Biomaterials 29(29):3973–3982.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.06.026 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Li M, Chen M, Han W, Fu X (2010) How far are induced pluripotent stem cells from the clinic? Ageing Res Rev 9(3):257–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2010.03.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Lee JY, Zhou Z, Taub PJ, Ramcharan M, Li Y, Akinbiyi T, Maharam ER, Leong DJ, Laudier DM, Ruike T, Torina PJ, Zaidi M, Majeska RJ, Schaffler MB, Flatow EL, Sun HB (2011) BMP-12 treatment of adult mesenchymal stem cells in vitro augments tendon-like tissue formation and defect repair in vivo. PLoS One 6(3):e17531.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017531 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Barry F, Murphy M (2013) Mesenchymal stem cells in joint disease and repair.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2013.109
  174. 174.
    Lubowitz JH, Provencher MT, Poehling GG (2013) Stem cells in the knee. Arthroscopy 29(4):609–610.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2013.01.005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Silva A, Sampaio R, Fernandes R, Pinto E (2014) Is there a role for adult non-cultivated bone marrow stem cells in ACL reconstruction? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(1):66–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2279-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Bacelar AH, Cengiz IF, Silva-Correia J, Sousa RA, Oliveira JM, Reisa RL (2017) “Smart” hydrogels in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications. In: Handbook of intelligent scaffolds for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine 2:327–361. https://www.crcpress.com/Handbook-of-Intelligent-Scaffolds-for-Tissue-Engineering-and-Regenerative/Khang/p/book/9789814745123
  177. 177.
    Kim IL, Mauck RL, Burdick JA (2011) Hydrogel design for cartilage tissue engineering: a case study with hyaluronic acid. Biomaterials 32(34):8771–8782.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.08.073 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Liu M, Zeng X, Ma C, Yi H, Ali Z, Mou X, Li S, Deng Y, He N (2017) Injectable hydrogels for cartilage and bone tissue engineering. Bone Res 5:17014.  https://doi.org/10.1038/boneres.2017.14 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Pereira H, Silva-Correia J, Yan L-P, Oliveira A, Oliveira J-M, Espregueira-Mendes J, Reis R (2013) Combined application of Silk-fibroin/methacrylated gellan gum hydrogel in tissue engineering approaches for partial and/or total meniscus replacement while enabling control of neovascularization. Rev Chir Orthop Traumatol 99(8):e18-e19Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Rao JK, Ramesh DV, Rao KP (1994) Implantable controlled delivery systems for proteins based on collagen — pHEMA hydrogels. Biomaterials 15(5):383–389.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(94)90251-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Silva-Correia J, Miranda-Goncalves V, Salgado AJ, Sousa N, Oliveira JM, Reis RM, Reis RL (2012) Angiogenic potential of gellan-gum-based hydrogels for application in nucleus pulposus regeneration: in vivo study. Tissue Eng A 18(11-12):1203–1212.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2011.0632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Evans CH (2013) Advances in regenerative orthopedics. Mayo Clin Proc 88(11):1323–1339.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.04.027 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
  184. 184.
    Foster TE, Puskas BL, Mandelbaum BR, Gerhardt MB, Rodeo SA (2009) Platelet-rich plasma: from basic science to clinical applications. Am J Sports Med 37(11):2259–2272.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509349921 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Mazzocca AD, McCarthy MB, Chowaniec DM, Cote MP, Romeo AA, Bradley JP, Arciero RA, Beitzel K (2012) Platelet-rich plasma differs according to preparation method and human variability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(4):308–316.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00430 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Cengiz IF, Silva-Correia J, Pereira H, Espregueira-Mendes J, Oliveira JM, Reis RL (2017) Advanced regenerative strategies for human knee meniscus. In: Regenerative strategies for the treatment of knee joint disabilities. Springer, pp 271–285Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC, Jaiswal RK, Douglas R, Mosca JD, Moorman MA, Simonetti DW, Craig S, Marshak DR (1999) Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science 284(5411):143–147PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    da Silva Meirelles L, Caplan AI, Nardi NB (2008) In search of the in vivo identity of mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells 26(9):2287–2299.  https://doi.org/10.1634/stemcells.2007-1122 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Williams AR, Hare JM (2011) Mesenchymal stem cells: biology, pathophysiology, translational findings, and therapeutic implications for cardiac disease. Circ Res 109(8):923–940.  https://doi.org/10.1161/circresaha.111.243147 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Guilak F, Estes BT, Diekman BO, Moutos FT, Gimble JM (2010) 2010 Nicolas Andry Award: Multipotent adult stem cells from adipose tissue for musculoskeletal tissue engineering. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(9):2530–2540.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1410-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Khan WS, Adesida AB, Tew SR, Longo UG, Hardingham TE (2012) Fat pad-derived mesenchymal stem cells as a potential source for cell-based adipose tissue repair strategies. Cell Prolif 45(2):111–120.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2184.2011.00804.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Agung M, Ochi M, Yanada S, Adachi N, Izuta Y, Yamasaki T, Toda K (2006) Mobilization of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells into the injured tissues after intraarticular injection and their contribution to tissue regeneration. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(12):1307–1314.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-006-0124-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Meirelles Lda S, Fontes AM, Covas DT, Caplan AI (2009) Mechanisms involved in the therapeutic properties of mesenchymal stem cells. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 20(5-6):419–427.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cytogfr.2009.10.002 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Bashir J, Sherman A, Lee H, Kaplan L, Hare JM (2014) Mesenchymal stem cell therapies in the treatment of musculoskeletal diseases. PM R 6(1):61–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.05.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Kuroda R, Ishida K, Matsumoto T, Akisue T, Fujioka H, Mizuno K, Ohgushi H, Wakitani S, Kurosaka M (2007) Treatment of a full-thickness articular cartilage defect in the femoral condyle of an athlete with autologous bone-marrow stromal cells. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15(2):226–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2006.08.008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Wakitani S, Nawata M, Tensho K, Okabe T, Machida H, Ohgushi H (2007) Repair of articular cartilage defects in the patello-femoral joint with autologous bone marrow mesenchymal cell transplantation: three case reports involving nine defects in five knees. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 1(1):74–79.  https://doi.org/10.1002/term.8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Buda R, Vannini F, Cavallo M, Grigolo B, Cenacchi A, Giannini S (2010) Osteochondral lesions of the knee: a new one-step repair technique with bone-marrow-derived cells. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(Suppl 2):2–11.  https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.j.00813 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Buda R, Vannini F, Cavallo M, Baldassarri M, Luciani D, Mazzotti A, Pungetti C, Olivieri A, Giannini S (2013) One-step arthroscopic technique for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the knee with bone-marrow-derived cells: three years results. Musculoskelet Surg 97(2):145–151.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-013-0242-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Giannini S, Buda R, Vannini F, Cavallo M, Grigolo B (2009) One-step bone marrow-derived cell transplantation in talar osteochondral lesions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(12):3307–3320.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0885-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Giannini S, Buda R, Cavallo M, Ruffilli A, Cenacchi A, Cavallo C, Vannini F (2010) Cartilage repair evolution in post-traumatic osteochondral lesions of the talus: from open field autologous chondrocyte to bone-marrow-derived cells transplantation. Injury 41(11):1196–1203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.09.028 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Haleem AM, Singergy AA, Sabry D, Atta HM, Rashed LA, Chu CR, El Shewy MT, Azzam A, Abdel Aziz MT (2010) The clinical use of human culture-expanded autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells transplanted on platelet-rich fibrin glue in the treatment of articular cartilage defects: a pilot study and preliminary results. Cartilage 1(4):253–261.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603510366027 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Giannini S, Buda R, Battaglia M, Cavallo M, Ruffilli A, Ramponi L, Pagliazzi G, Vannini F (2013) One-step repair in talar osteochondral lesions: 4-year clinical results and t2-mapping capability in outcome prediction. Am J Sports Med 41(3):511–518.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512467622 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Kasemkijwattana C, Hongeng S, Kesprayura S, Rungsinaporn V, Chaipinyo K, Chansiri K (2011) Autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells implantation for cartilage defects: two cases report. J Med Assoc Thai 94(3):395–400PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Oliveira JM, Rodrigues MT, Silva SS, Malafaya PB, Gomes ME, Viegas CA, Dias IR, Azevedo JT, Mano JF, Reis RL (2006) Novel hydroxyapatite/chitosan bilayered scaffold for osteochondral tissue-engineering applications: Scaffold design and its performance when seeded with goat bone marrow stromal cells. Biomaterials 27(36):6123–6137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.07.034 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Nejadnik H, Hui JH, Feng Choong EP, Tai BC, Lee EH (2010) Autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells versus autologous chondrocyte implantation: an observational cohort study. Am J Sports Med 38(6):1110–1116.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509359067 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Gigante A, Cecconi S, Calcagno S, Busilacchi A, Enea D (2012) Arthroscopic knee cartilage repair with covered microfracture and bone marrow concentrate. Arthrosc Tech 1(2):e175–e180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2012.07.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Enea D, Cecconi S, Calcagno S, Busilacchi A, Manzotti S, Gigante A (2015) One-step cartilage repair in the knee: collagen-covered microfracture and autologous bone marrow concentrate. A pilot study. Knee 22(1):30–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2014.10.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Enea D, Cecconi S, Calcagno S, Busilacchi A, Manzotti S, Kaps C, Gigante A (2013) Single-stage cartilage repair in the knee with microfracture covered with a resorbable polymer-based matrix and autologous bone marrow concentrate. Knee 20(6):562–569.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2013.04.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Rai V, Dilisio MF, Dietz NE, Agrawal DK (2017) Recent strategies in cartilage repair: a systemic review of the scaffold development and tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A 105(8):2343–2354.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.36087 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  210. 210.
    He H, Li W, Tseng DY, Zhang S, Chen SY, Day AJ, Tseng SC (2009) Biochemical characterization and function of complexes formed by hyaluronan and the heavy chains of inter-alpha-inhibitor (HC*HA) purified from extracts of human amniotic membrane. J Biol Chem 284(30):20136–20146.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.021881 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  211. 211.
    Cengiz IF, Oliveira JM, Reis RL (2014) Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine strategies for the treatment of osteochondral lesions. In: 3D multiscale physiological human. Springer, pp 25–47Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    Correia SI, Silva-Correia J, Pereira H, Canadas RF, da Silva Morais A, Frias AM, Sousa RA, van Dijk CN, Espregueira-Mendes J, Reis RL, Oliveira JM (2015) Posterior talar process as a suitable cell source for treatment of cartilage and osteochondral defects of the talus. J Tissue Eng Regen Med.  https://doi.org/10.1002/term.2092
  213. 213.
    Khan WS, Longo UG, Adesida A, Denaro V (2012) Stem cell and tissue engineering applications in orthopaedics and musculoskeletal medicine. Stem Cells Int 2012:403170.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/403170 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  214. 214.
    Oliveira M, Reis RL (2017) Regenerative strategies for the treatment of knee joint disabilities. Studies in mechanobiology, tissue engineering and biomaterials. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44785-8
  215. 215.
    Patrascu JM, Freymann U, Kaps C, Poenaru DV (2010) Repair of a post-traumatic cartilage defect with a cell-free polymer-based cartilage implant: a follow-up at two years by MRI and histological review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(8):1160–1163.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.92b8.24341 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  216. 216.
    Siclari A, Mascaro G, Kaps C, Boux E (2014) A 5-year follow-up after cartilage repair in the knee using a platelet-rich plasma-immersed polymer-based implant. Open Orthop J 8:346–354.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001408010346 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  217. 217.
    Yan LP, Silva-Correia J, Oliveira MB, Vilela C, Pereira H, Sousa RA, Mano JF, Oliveira AL, Oliveira JM, Reis RL (2015) Bilayered silk/silk-nanoCaP scaffolds for osteochondral tissue engineering: In vitro and in vivo assessment of biological performance. Acta Biomater 12:227–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.10.021 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  218. 218.
    Yan LP, Oliveira JM, Oliveira AL, Caridade SG, Mano JF, Reis RL (2012) Macro/microporous silk fibroin scaffolds with potential for articular cartilage and meniscus tissue engineering applications. Acta Biomater 8(1):289–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.09.037 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  219. 219.
    Chen Y, Bloemen V, Impens S, Moesen M, Luyten FP, Schrooten J (2011) Characterization and optimization of cell seeding in scaffolds by factorial design: quality by design approach for skeletal tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 17(12):1211–1221.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2011.0092 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    Borselli C, Cezar CA, Shvartsman D, Vandenburgh HH, Mooney DJ (2011) The role of multifunctional delivery scaffold in the ability of cultured myoblasts to promote muscle regeneration. Biomaterials 32(34):8905–8914.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.08.019 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  221. 221.
    Christensen BB, Foldager CB, Jensen J, Jensen NC, Lind M (2016) Poor osteochondral repair by a biomimetic collagen scaffold: 1- to 3-year clinical and radiological follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(7):2380–2387.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3538-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  222. 222.
    Pereira H, Frias AM, Oliveira JM, Espregueira-Mendes J, Reis RL (2011) Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine strategies in meniscus lesions. Arthroscopy 27(12):1706–1719.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2011.08.283 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  223. 223.
    Cengiz IF, Pereira H, Espregueira-Mendes J, Oliveira JM, Reis RL (2017) Treatments of meniscus lesions of the knee: current concepts and future perspectives. Regen Eng Transl Med:1–19Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    Pleshko N, Grande DA, Myers KR (2012) Nanotechnology in orthopaedics. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20(1):60–62.  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-20-01-060 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  225. 225.
    Lu H, Lv L, Dai Y, Wu G, Zhao H, Zhang F (2013) Porous chitosan scaffolds with embedded hyaluronic acid/chitosan/plasmid-DNA nanoparticles encoding TGF-beta1 induce DNA controlled release, transfected chondrocytes, and promoted cell proliferation. PLoS One 8(7):e69950.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069950 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  226. 226.
    El-Sadik AO, El-Ansary A, Sabry SM (2010) Nanoparticle-labeled stem cells: a novel therapeutic vehicle. Clin Pharm 2:9–16.  https://doi.org/10.2147/CPAA.S8931 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. 227.
    Santo VE, Gomes ME, Mano JF, Reis RL (2013) Controlled release strategies for bone, cartilage, and osteochondral engineering – part I: recapitulation of native tissue healing and variables for the design of delivery systems. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 19(4):308–326.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2012.0138 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  228. 228.
    Lee K, Silva EA, Mooney DJ (2011) Growth factor delivery-based tissue engineering: general approaches and a review of recent developments. J R Soc Interface 8(55):153–170.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2010.0223 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  229. 229.
    Correia SI, Pereira H, Silva-Correia J, Van Dijk CN, Espregueira-Mendes J, Oliveira JM, Reis RL (2014) Current concepts: tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications in the ankle joint. J R Soc Interface 11(92):20130784.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0784 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  230. 230.
    Lim EH, Sardinha JP, Myers S (2014) Nanotechnology biomimetic cartilage regenerative scaffolds. Arch Plast Surg 41(3):231–240.  https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2014.41.3.231 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  231. 231.
    Dormer NH, Singh M, Wang L, Berkland CJ, Detamore MS (2010) Osteochondral interface tissue engineering using macroscopic gradients of bioactive signals. Ann Biomed Eng 38(6):2167–2182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-010-0028-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  232. 232.
    Leping Y, Oliveira JM, Oliveira AL, Reis RL (2015) Current concepts and challenges in osteochondral tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. ACS Biomater Sci Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ab500038y
  233. 233.
    Madry H, Orth P, Cucchiarini M (2011) Gene therapy for cartilage repair. Cartilage 2(3):201–225.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603510392914 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  234. 234.
    Reitmaier S, Wolfram U, Ignatius A, Wilke H-J, Gloria A, Martín-Martínez JM, Silva-Correia J, Miguel Oliveira J, Luís Reis R, Schmidt H (2012) Hydrogels for nucleus replacement – facing the biomechanical challenge. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater (0). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.05.010 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  235. 235.
    Cengiz I, Pitikakis M, Cesario L, Parascandolo P, Vosilla L, Viano G, Oliveira J, Reis R (2016) Building the basis for patient-specific meniscal scaffolds: From human knee MRI to fabrication of 3D printed scaffolds. Bioprinting 1:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. 236.
    Cengiz IF, Pereira H, Pitikakis M, Espregueira-Mendes J, Oliveira JM, Reis RL (2017) Building the basis for patient-specific meniscal scaffolds. In: Gobbi A, Espregueira-Mendes J, Lane JG, Karahan M (eds) Bio-orthopaedics: a new approach. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 411–418.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54181-4_32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  237. 237.
    Mouser VHM, Levato R, Bonassar LJ, D'Lima DD, Grande DA, Klein TJ, Saris DBF, Zenobi-Wong M, Gawlitta D, Malda J (2017) Three-dimensional bioprinting and its potential in the field of articular cartilage regeneration. Cartilage 8(4):327–340.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603516665445 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  238. 238.
    Oner T, Cengiz I, Pitikakis M, Cesario L, Parascandolo P, Vosilla L, Viano G, Oliveira J, Reis R, Silva-Correia J (2017) 3D segmentation of intervertebral discs: from concept to the fabrication of patient-specific scaffolds. J 3D Print Med 1(2):91–101.  https://doi.org/10.2217/3dp-2016-0011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hélder Pereira
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Ibrahim Fatih Cengiz
    • 3
    • 4
  • Carlos Vilela
    • 3
    • 4
  • Pedro L. Ripoll
    • 2
    • 5
  • João Espregueira-Mendes
    • 3
    • 4
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
  • J. Miguel Oliveira
    • 3
    • 4
    • 9
  • Rui L. Reis
    • 3
    • 4
    • 9
  • C. Niek van Dijk
    • 5
    • 10
  1. 1.Orthopedic Department Centro Hospitalar Póvoa de VarzimVila do CondePortugal
  2. 2.International Centre of Sports Traumatology of the AveTaipasPortugal
  3. 3.3B’s Research Group – Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics, University of Minho, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Avepark, Parque de Ciência e Tecnologia, Zona Industrial da GandraBarco, GuimarãesPortugal
  4. 4.ICVS/3B’s – PT Government Associate LaboratoryBraga, GuimarãesPortugal
  5. 5.Ripoll y De Prado Sports Clinic: Murcia – Madrid FIFA Medical Centre of ExcellenceMadridSpain
  6. 6.Clínica do Dragão, Espregueira-Mendes Sports Centre – FIFA Medical Centre of ExcellencePortoPortugal
  7. 7.Dom Henrique Research CentrePortoPortugal
  8. 8.Orthopedic Department, University of MinhoBragaPortugal
  9. 9.The Discoveries Centre for Regenerative and Precision Medicine, Headquarters at University of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  10. 10.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Academic Center for Evidence-Based Sports Medicine, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement SciencesAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations