TY - JOUR
T1 - Learning From Failure in Cartilage Repair Surgery
T2 - An Analysis of the Mode of Failure of Primary Procedures in Consecutive Cases at a Tertiary Referral Center
AU - Krych, Aaron J.
AU - Hevesi, Mario
AU - Desai, Vishal S.
AU - Camp, Christopher L.
AU - Stuart, Michael J.
AU - Saris, Daniel B.F.
N1 - Funding Information:
*Address correspondence to Aaron J. Krych, MD, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA (email: krych.aaron@mayo.edu) (Twitter: @DrKrych). †Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. ‡Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: A.J.K. receives research support from Aesculap/ B. Braun, the Arthritis Foundation, Ceterix, and Histogenics; is a paid consultant for Arthrex, Vericel, and DePuy Orthopaedics; receives royalties from Arthrex; has received honoraria from the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation; and has received hospitality payments from Arthrex and the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation. M.J.S. is a paid consultant for Arthrex, receives royalties from Arthrex, receives research support from Stryker, and has received hospitality payments from Arthrex. D.B.F.S. receives research support from Arthrex, Ivy Sports Medicine, and Smith & Nephew and is a paid consultant for Cartiheal, Smith & Nephew, and Vericel. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (application No. 15-000601).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, The Author(s) 2018.
PY - 2018/5/9
Y1 - 2018/5/9
N2 - Background: As the number of cartilage restoration procedures is increasing, so is the number of revision procedures. However, there remains limited information on the reasons for failure of primary cartilage restoration procedures. Purpose: To determine the common modes of failure in primary cartilage restoration procedures to improve surgical decision making and patient outcomes. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients who presented for revision after failed cartilage repair surgery were evaluated for factors contributing to failure of the primary procedure. All revision cases performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary center for failed cartilage restoration over a 6-year time frame were identified. In all cases, the medical records, preoperative radiographs, and magnetic resonance imaging scans were reviewed by 2 experienced cartilage surgeons. The cause for failure was categorized as malalignment, meniscal deficiency, graft or biologic failure, or instability. Univariate and descriptive statistics regarding patient demographics, index procedure, lesion location and size, and mechanism of failure were analyzed. Results: A total of 59 cases in 53 patients (32 male, 21 female) met the inclusion criteria. The mean patient age at the time of revision was 27.6 years, and the mean body mass index was 28.4 kg/m2. Failed index surgical procedures included 35 microfractures (59%), 12 osteochondral allograft transplantations (20%), 10 osteochondral autograft transfers (17%), 2 nonviable osteochondral allografts (3%), and 2 particulated juvenile chondral allografts (3%). The mean lesion size was 4.4 cm2. Reasons for failure included 33 cases with untreated malalignment (56%), 16 with graft failure (27%), 11 with untreated meniscal deficiency (19%), and 3 with untreated instability (5%); 4 cases demonstrated multiple reasons for failure. Conclusion: The most commonly recognized reason for failure was untreated malalignment. While biologic and graft failures will occur, the majority of failures were attributed to untreated background factors such as malalignment, meniscal deficiency, and instability. The stepwise approach of considering and addressing alignment, meniscal volume, and stability remains essential in cartilage restoration surgery.
AB - Background: As the number of cartilage restoration procedures is increasing, so is the number of revision procedures. However, there remains limited information on the reasons for failure of primary cartilage restoration procedures. Purpose: To determine the common modes of failure in primary cartilage restoration procedures to improve surgical decision making and patient outcomes. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients who presented for revision after failed cartilage repair surgery were evaluated for factors contributing to failure of the primary procedure. All revision cases performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary center for failed cartilage restoration over a 6-year time frame were identified. In all cases, the medical records, preoperative radiographs, and magnetic resonance imaging scans were reviewed by 2 experienced cartilage surgeons. The cause for failure was categorized as malalignment, meniscal deficiency, graft or biologic failure, or instability. Univariate and descriptive statistics regarding patient demographics, index procedure, lesion location and size, and mechanism of failure were analyzed. Results: A total of 59 cases in 53 patients (32 male, 21 female) met the inclusion criteria. The mean patient age at the time of revision was 27.6 years, and the mean body mass index was 28.4 kg/m2. Failed index surgical procedures included 35 microfractures (59%), 12 osteochondral allograft transplantations (20%), 10 osteochondral autograft transfers (17%), 2 nonviable osteochondral allografts (3%), and 2 particulated juvenile chondral allografts (3%). The mean lesion size was 4.4 cm2. Reasons for failure included 33 cases with untreated malalignment (56%), 16 with graft failure (27%), 11 with untreated meniscal deficiency (19%), and 3 with untreated instability (5%); 4 cases demonstrated multiple reasons for failure. Conclusion: The most commonly recognized reason for failure was untreated malalignment. While biologic and graft failures will occur, the majority of failures were attributed to untreated background factors such as malalignment, meniscal deficiency, and instability. The stepwise approach of considering and addressing alignment, meniscal volume, and stability remains essential in cartilage restoration surgery.
KW - failed cartilage
KW - malalignment
KW - meniscal deficiency
KW - revision cartilage restoration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048266476&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048266476&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/2325967118773041
DO - 10.1177/2325967118773041
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85048266476
SN - 2325-9671
VL - 6
JO - Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 5
ER -