A Randomized Trial of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Versus Alternative Forms of Surgical Cartilage Management in Patients With a Failed Primary Treatment for Chondral or Osteochondral Defects in the Knee.

BACKGROUND: There are limited randomized controlled trials with long-term outcomes comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) versus alternative forms of surgical cartilage management within the knee. PURPOSE: To determine at 5 years after surgery whether ACI was superior to alternative forms of cartilage management in patients after a failed previous treatment for chondral or osteochondral defects in the knee. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: In total, 390 participants were randomly assigned to receive either ACI or alternative management. Patients aged 18 to 55 years with one or two symptomatic cartilage defects who had failed 1 previous therapeutic surgical procedure in excess of 6 months prior were included. Dual primary outcome measures were used: (1) patient-completed Lysholm knee score and (2) time from surgery to cessation of treatment benefit. Secondary outcome measures included International Knee Documentation Committee and Cincinnati Knee Rating System scores, as well as number of serious adverse events. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Lysholm scores were improved by 1 year in both groups (15.4 points [95% CI, 11.9 to 18.8] and 15.2 points [95% CI, 11.6 to 18.9]) for ACI and alternative, with this improvement sustained over the duration of the trial. However, no evidence of a difference was found between the groups at 5 years (2.9 points; 95% CI, -1.8 to 7.5; P = .46). Approximately half of the participants (55%; 95% CI, 47% to 64% with ACI) were still experiencing benefit at 5 years, with time to cessation of treatment benefit similar in both groups (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.32; P > .99). There was a differential effect on Lysholm scores in patients without previous marrow stimulation compared with those with marrow stimulation (P = .03; 6.4 points in favor of ACI; 95% CI, -0.4 to 13.1). More participants experienced a serious adverse event with ACI (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Over 5 years, there was no evidence of a difference in Lysholm scores between ACI and alternative management in patients who had previously failed treatment. Previous marrow stimulation had a detrimental effect on the outcome of ACI. REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: 48911177.

Do we need to replace the patella in knee arthroplasty for rheumatoid disease?

We have examined the anterior knee function in two patient groups who had undergone primary knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing to identify differences for osteoarthrosis compared with rheumatoid disease. We identified two consecutive series of patients who had undergone knee replacement surgery for either osteoarthritis or rheumatoid disease between 1992 and 1994 under the care of a single surgeon using the same implant and surgical technique. There were 90 patients in each group. All were examined and asked to complete a questionnaire so as to determine Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, Bartlett patellar score and a Visual Analogue score (VAS) for any persistent anterior knee pain at rest. We failed to identify any significant differences in terms of anterior knee function between these two groups of patients. The re-operation rate was similar for both groups. It would appear that primary knee replacement for rheumatoid disease is met with a similarly good outcome for anterior knee function despite absence of patellar resurfacing. We would question the contention that patellar resurfacing is necessary for patients undergoing knee replacement for rheumatoid disease.