Unicompartmental osteoarthritis: High survival rate with a combined mechanical and biological salvage approach as alternative to metal resurfacing: Results at minimum 10 years of follow-up.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the long-term clinical results and failure rate of patients treated with complex salvage procedures using a combined mechanical and biological approach to address unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) and postpone the need for joint replacement. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients (40.3 ± 10.9 years old) affected by unicompartmental OA (Kellgren-Lawrence 3) in stable joints underwent a personalized surgical treatment depending on the specific requirements of the affected compartment, including high tibial osteotomy, osteochondral scaffold, meniscal scaffold and meniscal allograft transplantation. Patients were evaluated with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Tegner scores before surgery, at 3 years and a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. RESULTS: A significant improvement was observed over time in all scores but worsened at the final follow-up. The IKDC subjective score improved from 46.9 ± 16.2 to 79.8 ± 16.4 at 3 years (p < 0.0005) and then decreased to 64.5 ± 21.4 (p = 0.001) at 12 years. A similar trend was confirmed for VAS and Tegner scores. Only two patients subsequently underwent knee arthroplasty, and nine more patients were considered clinical failure, for a cumulative surgical and clinical failure rate of 28.2% at the final follow-up. CONCLUSION: A personalized, joint-preserving, combined mechanical and biological approach, addressing alignment as well as meniscal and cartilage lesions, is safe and effective, providing a clinical benefit and delaying the need for arthroplasty in young patients affected by unicompartmental knee OA. At the final evaluation, the clinical improvement decreased, but more than two-thirds of the patients still benefited from this treatment at a long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV case series.

Vascularized fibular grafts for the treatment of long bone defects: pros and cons. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To quantify union rate, complication rate, reintervention rate, as well as functional outcome after vascularized fibular bone grafts (VFGs) for the treatment of long-bone defects. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to August 18, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, comparative studies, and case series describing the various techniques available involving VFGs for the reconstruction of segmental long-bone defects were included. A meta-analysis was performed on union results, complications, and reinterventions. Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was performed with the Downs and Black's "Checklist for Measuring Quality". RESULTS: After full-text assessment, 110 articles on 2226 patients were included. Among the retrieved studies, 4 were classified as poor, 83 as fair, and 23 as good. Overall, good functional results were documented and a union rate of 80.1% (CI 74.1-86.2%) was found, with a 39.4% (CI 34.4-44.4%) complication rate, the most common being fractures, non-unions and delayed unions, infections, and thrombosis. Donor site morbidity represented 10.7% of the total complications. A 24.6% reintervention rate was documented (CI 21.0-28.1%), and 2.8% of the patients underwent amputation. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis documented good long-term outcomes both in the upper and lower limb. However, VFG is a complex and demanding technique; this complexity means an average high number of complications, especially fractures, non-unions, and vascular problems. Both potential and limitations of VFG should be considered when choosing the most suitable approach for the treatment of long-bone defects.

Classification Systems for Knee Osteochondritis Dissecans: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of this systematic review was to describe all classification systems for knee osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions, evaluating their accuracy and reliability, as well as their use in the literature on knee OCD. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature was performed in July 2021 on PubMed, WebOfScience, and Cochrane Collaboration (library) to describe all published classification systems for knee OCD lesions and quantify the use of these classifications in the literature. RESULTS: Out of 1,664 records, 30 studies on 33 OCD classifications systems were identified, describing 11 radiographic, 13 MRI, and 9 arthroscopic classifications. The search included 193 clinical studies applying at least one OCD classification, for a total of 7,299 knee OCD cases. Radiographic classifications were applied to 35.8%, MRI to 35.2%, and arthroscopic classifications to 64.2% of the included studies. Among these, in the last two decades, the International Cartilage Repair Society's (ICRS) arthroscopic classification was the most described approach in studies on knee OCD. Overall, there is a lack of data on accuracy and reliability of the available systems. CONCLUSIONS: Several classifications are available, with ICRS being the most used system over the time period studied. Arthroscopy allows to confirm lesion stability, but noninvasive imaging approaches are the first line to guide patient management. Among these, radiographic classifications are still widely used, despite being partially superseded by MRI, because of its capability to detect the earliest disease stages and to distinguish stable from unstable lesions, and thus to define the most suitable conservative or surgical approach to manage patients affected by knee OCD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level IV.

Union, complication, reintervention and failure rates of surgical techniques for large diaphyseal defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To understand the potential and limitations of the different available surgical techniques used to treat large, long-bone diaphyseal defects by focusing on union, complication, re-intervention, and failure rates, summarizing the pros and cons of each technique. A literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to March 16th, 2022; Inclusion criteria were clinical studies written in English, of any level of evidence, with more than five patients, describing the treatment of diaphyseal bone defects. The primary outcome was the analysis of results in terms of primary union, complication, reintervention, and failure rate of the four major groups of techniques: bone allograft and autograft, bone transport, vascularized and non-vascularized fibular graft, and endoprosthesis. The statistical analysis was carried out according to Neyeloff et al., and the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to provide pooled rates across the studies. The influence of the various techniques on union rates, complication rates, and reintervention rates was assessed by a z test on the pooled rates with their corresponding 95% CIs. Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was based on Downs and Black's "Checklist for Measuring Quality" and Rob 2.0 tool. Certainty of yielded evidence was evaluated with the GRADE system. Seventy-four articles were included on 1781 patients treated for the reconstruction of diaphyseal bone defects, 1496 cases in the inferior limb, and 285 in the upper limb, with trauma being the main cause of bone defect. The meta-analysis identified different outcomes in terms of results and risks. Primary union, complications, and reinterventions were 75%, 26% and 23% for bone allografts and autografts, 91%, 62% and 19% for the bone transport group, and 78%, 38% and 23% for fibular grafts; mean time to union was between 7.8 and 8.9 months in all these groups. Results varied according to the different aetiologies, endoprosthesis was the best solution for tumour, although with a 22% failure rate, while trauma presented a more composite outcome, with fibular grafts providing a faster time to union (6.9 months), while cancellous and cortical-cancellous grafts caused less complications, reinterventions, and failures. The literature about this topic has overall limited quality. However, important conclusions can be made: Many options are available to treat critical-size defects of the diaphysis, but no one appears to be an optimal solution in terms of a safe, satisfactory, and long-lasting outcome. Regardless of the bone defect cause, bone transport techniques showed a better primary union rate, but bone allograft and autograft had fewer complication, reintervention, and failure rates than the other techniques. The specific lesion aetiology represents a critical aspect influencing potential and limitations and therefore the choice of the most suitable technique to address the challenging large diaphyseal defects.