High tibial osteotomy combined with cartilage restoration: A systematic review of clinical outcomes and prognostic factors.

Background: Focal chondral defects are often treated with cartilage restoration procedures. Malalignment often accompanies chondral defects. High tibial osteotomy (HTO), classically utilized to treat uni-compartmental knee osteoarthritis, corrects malalignment. HTO combined with cartilage restoration procedures can treat uni-compartmental osteoarthritis and focal chondral defects. Purpose: To assess outcomes of combined HTO and cartilage restoration procedures and review prognostic factors that may assist in preoperative planning and patient counseling. Study design: Systematic Review of published literature. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed and Scopus was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Thirty-four papers were included in qualitative considerations. Results: Thirty-four papers that reported the combined outcome of HTO and cartilage repair were included. Twenty of the 34 included papers reported prognostic factors that affected the success or failure of combined HTO and cartilage repair surgery for focal articular defect and uni-compartmental knee osteoarthritis. Cartilage repair techniques that were combined with HTO and included in this review are bone marrow stimulation, allograft transplantation, osteochondral autograft transplantation, autologous chondrocyte implantation, and mesenchymal stem cell implantation. Conclusions: HTO with adjunctive cartilage repair procedures improve clinical outcome scores and restore alignment in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis and isolated focal chondral defects. HTO with adjunctive cartilage procedures produces optimal results in younger, non-obese patients with focal chondral defects and varus malalignment, without significant lateral compartment and patellofemoral involvement.

Experts Achieve Consensus on a Majority of Statements Regarding Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatments for Treatment of Musculoskeletal Pathology.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of musculoskeletal pathologies. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of PRP using a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Thirty-five orthopaedic surgeons and sports medicine physicians participated in these consensus statements on PRP. The participants were composed of representatives of the Biologic Association, representing 9 international orthopaedic and musculoskeletal professional societies invited due to their active interest in the study of orthobiologics. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: There was consensus on 62% of statements about PRP. CONCLUSIONS: (1) PRP should be classified based on platelet count, leukocyte count, red blood count, activation method, and pure-plasma versus fibrin matrix; (2) PRP characteristics for reporting in research studies are platelet count, leukocyte count, neutrophil count, red blood cell count, total volume, the volume of injection, delivery method, and the number of injections; (3) the prognostic factors for those undergoing PRP injections are age, body mass index, severity/grade of pathology, chronicity of pathology, prior injections and response, primary diagnosis (primary vs postsurgery vs post-trauma vs psoriatic), comorbidities, and smoking; (4) regarding age and body mass index, there is no minimum or maximum, but clinical judgment should be used at extremes of either; (5) the ideal dose of PRP is undetermined; and (6) the minimal volume required is unclear and may depend on the pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Editorial Commentary: Amniotic Orthopaedic Biologics: There's Hope If We Avoid Hype.

Amniotic products donated from mothers having live births have been in use for wound care and other medical uses for many years. Recent developments in regenerative sciences have suggested these products in solution or lyophilized forms may be useful for the treatment of inflammatory diseases such as chronic tendinopathies and osteoarthritis of joints. These products for these indications, however, are deemed human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products (otherwise known as HCTPs) in the "351" category, meaning that they need to have a biologic license to be marketed and sold in the United States, and to gain this license, one needs to go through the usual rigor of investigational new drug filing and phase 1, 2, and 3 trials to prove safety and efficacy. Although current clinical use of amniotic solution and lyophilized products is on hold through this study period, both basic science and clinical trial studies are building a convincing set of data that suggest broad possibilities for their uses in the future. To date, both animal and human studies have shown that a single injection of amniotic suspension allograft is safe, has not elicited any significant immune response, and has been shown to be effective in several prospective studies and at least one well-controlled randomized controlled human study for knee osteoarthritis when compared with both hyaluronic acid and placebo saline. Proteins in these harvested and processed tissue allografts are anti-inflammatory, anticatabolic, and proanabolic. Appropriate caution by the Food and Drug Administration in granting licenses for these indications should not dissuade basic scientists and physicians from pursuing further research into these interesting products.

Treatment of post-meniscectomy knee symptoms with medial meniscus replacement results in greater pain reduction and functional improvement than non-surgical care.

PURPOSE: Partial meniscectomy is a common orthopedic procedure intended to improve knee pain and function in patients with irreparable meniscal tears. However, 6-25% of partial meniscectomy patients experience persistent knee pain after surgery. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving subjects with knee pain following partial meniscectomy, it was hypothesized that treatment with a synthetic medial meniscus replacement (MMR) implant provides significantly greater improvements in knee pain and function compared to non-surgical care alone. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter RCT, subjects with persistent knee pain following one or more previous partial meniscectomies were randomized to receive either MMR or non-surgical care. This analysis evaluated the 1-year outcomes of this 2-year clinical trial. Patient-reported knee pain, function, and quality of life were measured using nine separate patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcomes were the pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the average of all five KOOS subscales (KOOS Overall). Treatment cessation was defined as permanent device removal in the MMR group and any surgical procedure to the index knee in the non-surgical care group. RESULTS: Treated subjects had a median age of 52 years old (range 30-69 years) and one or more previous partial meniscectomies at a median of 34 months (range 5-430 months) before trial entry. Among 127 subjects treated with either MMR (n = 61) or non-surgical care (n = 66), 11 withdrew from the trial or were lost to follow-up (MMR, n = 0; non-surgical care, n = 11). The magnitude of improvement from baseline to 1 year was significantly greater in subjects who received MMR in both primary outcomes of KOOS Pain (P = 0.013) and KOOS Overall (P = 0.027). Treatment cessation was reported in 14.5% of non-surgical care subjects and only 4.9% of MMR subjects (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Treatment with the synthetic MMR implant resulted in significantly greater improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 1 year of follow-up compared to treatment with non-surgical care alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Safety and Efficacy of an Amniotic Suspension Allograft Injection Over 12 Months in a Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial for Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of amniotic suspension allograft (ASA) compared to hyaluronic acid (HA) and saline at up to 12 months of follow-up through the use of patient-reported outcomes, immunoglobulin levels, and anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) levels. METHODS: Within this multicenter study, 200 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to a single intra-articular injection of saline, HA, or ASA. Patient-reported outcomes, including Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and visual analog scale (VAS) score, were collected at multiple time points (baseline, 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months) out to 12 months to assess improvements in pain and function. Radiographs at baseline and 12 months were taken to determine radiographic changes, while blood was collected at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months to determine changes in immunoglobulins and anti-HLA levels. Statistical analyses were performed using last observation carried forward and mixed effects model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Treatment with ASA resulted in significant improvements in KOOS and VAS scores that were maintained through 12 months (P < .05). Treatment with ASA resulted in a 63.2% responder rate at 12 months using the Outcome Measures in Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International simplified definition. There were no significant differences between groups for radiographic measures in the index knee, immunoglobulins, C-reactive protein, or anti-HLA serum levels (P > .05). The number and type of adverse events (AEs) reported for ASA were comparable to the HA injection group, while no treatment-emergent AEs were reported for the saline group. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial of ASA vs HA and saline for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis demonstrated clinically meaningful improved outcomes with ASA over the controls out to 12 months postinjection. No concerning immunologic or adverse reactions to the ASA injection were identified with regards to severe AEs, immunoglobulin, or anti-HLA levels. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled multicenter trial.