» Articles » PMID: 37707660

2-year Results of Middle-aged Patients with Two-compartment Cartilage Lesions in One Knee Treated with Two Patient Specific Metal Implants

Overview
Journal J Exp Orthop
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2023 Sep 14
PMID 37707660
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Focal chondral lesions of the femur are currently treated with biological repair or arthroplasty. However, some patients are not suitable for either one due to lesion size, age, or prior biological treatment attempts. While singular patient-specific focal mini metal implants already showed good results, the outcomes of bicompartmental implantation of these implants have not been discussed in the literature yet. This study aims to evaluate clinical outcomes of patients who underwent bicompartmental implantation of two patient-specific implants.

Methods: This prospective, non-randomized, non-comparative pilot study evaluates results up to two years after bicompartmental implantation of two implants (Episealer Implant, Episurf, Stockholm, Sweden). A damage report is compiled using a special MRI program and patient specific implants are manufactured, including 3D-printed surgical instruments to provide exact placement of the implant. The patients were assessed repeatedly using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain during the follow-up.

Results: The scores were evaluated three, 12, and 24 months after surgery and showed good results. The median in both scores improved from 37.7 for the KOOS5 preoperatively to 69.1 after 24 months and from 69 for the VAS for pain preoperatively to 9 after 24 months.

Conclusion: Overall, for the small study group presented, the early results are promising. With noticeable improvement in KOOS and VAS for pain after two years, patient specific implants appear to become relevant in future standardized treatment of femoral chondral lesions. Especially with bicompartmental implantation, full arthroplasty can be delayed even further.

Level Of Evidence: IV.

References
1.
Egloff C, Hirschmann M, Moret C, Henle P, Ellenrieder M, Tischer T . [Total knee arthroplasty in the young patient-an update]. Orthopade. 2021; 50(5):395-401. PMC: 8081686. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-021-04104-w. View

2.
Ryd L, Flodstrom K, Manley M . Patient-Specific Implants for Focal Cartilage Lesions in The Knee: Implant Survivorship Analysis up to Seven Years Post-Implantation. Surg Technol Int. 2020; 38:379-386. View

3.
Dhollander A, Almqvist K, Moens K, Vandekerckhove P, Verdonk R, Verdonk P . The use of a prosthetic inlay resurfacing as a salvage procedure for a failed cartilage repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014; 23(8):2208-2212. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-014-2999-0. View

4.
Parvizi J, Nunley R, Berend K, Lombardi Jr A, Ruh E, Clohisy J . High level of residual symptoms in young patients after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 472(1):133-7. PMC: 3889453. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3229-7. View

5.
Klit J, Jacobsen S, Rosenlund S, Sonne-Holm S, Troelsen A . Total knee arthroplasty in younger patients evaluated by alternative outcome measures. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 29(5):912-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.09.035. View