Download PDF
Arthritis und Rheuma 2005; 25(06): 312-316
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1618522
Knorpelschäden
Schattauer GmbH

Aktueller Stand biologisch rekonstruktiver Verfahren des Gelenkknorpels

Status quo in articular cartilage surgery
Bernhard Schewe
1   Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Tübingen (Ärztlicher Direktor: Prof. Dr. med. Kuno Weise)
,
Kuno Weise
1   Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Tübingen (Ärztlicher Direktor: Prof. Dr. med. Kuno Weise)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

In tierexperimentellen und klinischen Studien konnte gezeigt werden, dass die zeitnahe biologische Rekonstruktion lokalisiert vollschichtiger Knorpelschäden des Kniegelenks der konservativen Behandlung oder der zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt durchgeführten biologischen Rekonstruktion überlegen ist. Dieser Zusammenhang wurde sowohl für die eigentliche Defektausheilung als auch für die Prävention von sekundär degenerativen Knorpelveränderungen gefun-den. Die frühzeitige Defektsanierung, insbesondere von größeren und klinisch symptomatischen Knorpeldefekten, ist daher nicht nur aus therapeutischer, sondern auch aus sozioökonomischer Sicht sinnvoll und wichtig. Für die bio-logische Rekonstruktion artikulärer Knorpeldefekte stehen mittlerweile eine Reihe verschiedener Verfahren zur Verfügung. Das geeignete Indikationsspektrum, Technik, Vorund Nachteile sowie die mittel- bis langfristigen Ergebnisse der verschiedenen Methoden werden in der vorliegenden Übersichtsarbeit vorgestellt.

Summary

Animal experiments as well as clinical studies have shown that an early biological reconstruction of circumscribed full-thickness cartilage defects in the knee is superior to a conservative treatment or a later biological reconstruction. This effect refers to the defect healing itself as well as to the prevention of degenerative changes in terms of a secondary osteoarthritis. Therefore an early treatment of articular cartilage defects is expedient and important not only from a therapeutic standpoint, but also from a socio-economic point of view. For the biological reconstruction of articular cartilage defects a number of treatments are available to date. The paper presents their different techniques, indications, pros and cons as well as the mid-and long-term results of the most popular surgical methods.

Schlüsselwörter

Gelenkknorpelschäden - biologische Rekonstruktion - Indikationen - OP-Technik

Keywords

Articular cartilage defects - biological reconstruction - indications - surgical techniques
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Anderson AF., Fu FH., Mandelbaum B.. et al. A controlled study of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture for articular cartilage lesions of the femur. Transactions of the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2003. New Orleans, USA: February 5-9.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Angermann P., Riegels-Nielsen P., Pedersen H.. Osteochondritis dissecans of the femoral condyle treated with periosteal transplantation. Poor outcome in 14 patients followed for 6–9 years. Acta Orthop Scand 1998; 69: 595-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bachmann G., Basad E., Lommel D., Steinmeyer J.. Die MRT in der Verlaufskontrolle nach matrix-gestützter autologer Chondrozytenimplantation (MACI®) und Mikrofrakturierung. Radiologe 2004; 44: 773-82.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Behrens P., Bosch U., Bruns J.. et al Indikations- und Durchführungsempfehlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft „Geweberegeneration und Gewebeersatz” zur Autologen Chondrozyten-Transplantation (ACT). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2004; 142: 529-39.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bentley G., Biant LC., Carrington RW.. et al A prospective randomised comparison of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for osteochondral defects in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85: 223-30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bouwmeester PS., Kuijer R., Homminga GN.. et al A retrospective analysis of two independent prospective cartilage repair studies: autogenous perichondrial grafting versus subchondral drilling 10 years follow up. J Orthop Res 2002; 20: 267-73.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bouwmeester P., Kuijer R., Terwindt-Rouwenhorst E.. et al Histological and biochemical evaluation of perichondrial transplants in human articular cartilage defects. J Orthop Res 1999; 17: 843-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Briggs TW., Mahroof S., David LA.. et al Histological evaluation of chondral defects after autologous chondrocyte implantation of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85: 1077-83.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brittberg M., Lindahl A., Nilsson A.. et al Treatment of deep cartilage defects in the knee with auto-logous chondrocyte transplantation. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 889-95.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Brown WE., Potter HG., Marx RG.. et al Magnetic resonance imaging appearance of cartilage repair in the knee. Clin Orthop 2004; 422: 214-23.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brucker P., Agneskircher JD., Burkart A.. et al Mega-OATS: Technik und Ergebnisse. Unfallchirurg 2002; 105: 443-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dell'Accio F., De Bari C., Luyten FP.. Molecular markers predictive of the capacity of expanded human articular chondrocytes to form stable cartilage in vivo. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44: 1608-19.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dorotka R., Bindreiter U., Macfelda K.. et al Marrow stimulation and chondrocyte transplantation using a collagen matrix for cartilage repair. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005; 13: 655-64.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fritz J., Gaissmaier C., Schewe B., Weise K.. Stellenwert und Technik der Autologen Chondrozyten-Transplantation. Zentralbl Chir 2005; 130: 327-32.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fu FH., Zurakowski D., Browne JE.. et al. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Versus Debridement for Treatment of Full-Thickness Chondral Defects of the Knee: An observational cohort study with 3-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2005 [Epub ahead of print].
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gaissmaier C., Fritz J., Mollenhauer J., Schneider U.. et al Verlauf klinisch symptomatischer Knorpelschäden des Kniegelenks: Ergebnisse ohne und mit biologischer Rekonstruktion. Dtsch Arztebl 2003; 100A: 2448-53.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Gaissmaier C., Fritz J., Schewe B., Albrecht D., Weise K.. Development of a novel collagen-based bi-phasic carrier for matrix-assisted transplantation of autologous chondrocytes. Akt Traumatol 2005; 35: 1-7.
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gross AE.. Repair of cartilage defects in the knee. J Knee Surg 2002; 15: 167-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gudas R., Kunigiskis K., Kalensinskas RJ.. Longterm follow-up of osteochondritis dissescans. Medicina 2002; 38: 284-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Haddo O., Mahroof S., Higgs D.. et al The use of chondrogide membrane in autologous chondrocyte implantation. Knee 2004; 11: 51-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hangody L., Fules P.. Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty for the treatment of full-thickness defects of weight-bearing joints: ten years of experimental and clinical experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85 (Suppl. 02) Suppl 25-32.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Henderson I., Francisco R., Oakes B., Cameron J.. Autologous chondrocyte implantation for treatment of focal chondral defects of the knee – a clinical, arthroscopic, MRI and histologic evaluation at 2 years. Knee 2005; 12: 209-16.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Henderson I., Tuy B., Oakes B.. Reoperation after autologous chondrocyte implantation. Indications and findings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86: 205-11.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Horas U., Pelinkovic D., Herr G., Aigner T., Schnettler R.. Autologous chondrocyte implantation and osteochondral cylinder transplantation in cartilage repair of the knee joint: a prospective, comparative trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85: 185-92.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hunziker EB.. Articular cartilage repair: basic science and clinical progress. A review of the current status and prospects. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002; 10: 432-63.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Jakob RP., Franz T., Gautier E., Mainil-Varlet P.. Autologous osteochondral grafting in the knee: Indication, results, and reflections. Clin Orthop 2002; 401: 170-84.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Knutsen G., Engebretsen L., Ludvigsen TC.. et al Autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture in the knee – a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: 455-64.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Madsen BL., Noer HH., Carstensen JP., Normark F.. Long-term results of periosteal transplantation in osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. Orthopedics 2000; 23: 223-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Marder RA., Hopkins Jr G., Timmerman LA.. Arthroscopic microfracture of chondral defects of the knee: a comparison of two postoperative treatments. Arthroscopy 2005; 21: 152-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mollenhauer J., Aurich M.. In Fritz J., Aicher WK., Eichhorn HJ.. Hrsg. Praxisleitfaden der Knorpelreparatur. Kapitel 1: Grundlegendes zum Gelenkknorpel. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2003: 3-10.
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Moseley JB., O´Malley K., Petersen NJ.. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for a osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 81-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Otte P.. Physiologie der Gelenkerhaltung. In Otte P.. Hrsg. Der Arthrose-Prozess. Gelenkerhaltung – Gefährdung – Destruktion. Teil 1: Osteochondrale Strukturen. Nürnberg: Novartis Pharma Verlag 2000; 7-192.
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Peterson L., Minas T., Brittberg M., Lindahl A.. Treatment of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation: results at two to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85 (Suppl. 02) Suppl 17-24.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Peterson L., Minas T., Brittberg M.. et al Two- to 9-year outcome after autologous chondrocyte transplantation of the knee. Clin Orthop 2000; 374: 212-34.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Peterson L., Brittberg M., Kiviranta I.. et al Autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Biomechanics and long-term durability. Am J Sports Med 2002; 30: 2-12.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Roberts S., Hollander AP., Caterson B., Menage J.. Matrix turnover in human cartilage repair tissue in autologous chondrocyte implantation. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44: 2586-98.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Russlies M., Behrens P., Ehlers EM.. et al Periosteum stimulates subchondral bone densification in autologous chondrocyte transplantation in a sheep model. Cell Tissue Res 2005; 319: 133-42.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Saris DB., Dhert WJ., Verbout AJ.. Joint homeostasis. The discrepancy between old and fresh defects in cartilage repair. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85: 1067-76.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Smith GD., Knutsen G., Richardson JB.. A clinical review of cartilage repair techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 445-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Steadman JR., Briggs KK., Rodrigo JJ.. et al Outcomes of microfracture for traumatic chondral defects of knee: average 11-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2003; 19: 477-84.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar